Page 14 of 37 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
24
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    I don’t come from the US, so I don’t give a shit about your parochial view of politics.

    You are the Cathy Newman in this exchange, you’re attributing claims to me I haven’t made.
    Yeah yeah yeah heard it all before. Your argument stopped making sense so you cry victim. Go away.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  2. #262
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurcus View Post
    I will do better. I will link you the full text of the billl. It's quite short. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...6/royal-assent

    I find the quote unnecessary due to the bill's length, but I'm going to quote it anyway, as I get the sense that you are the kind of person that will 'claim victory' if I don't provide you the information in the particular way that you like.







    I have bolded the parts I find particularly relevant. If you actually read the damn thing, it's ambiguous. By a strict reading of the bill, if you in any way infringe upon the opportunities of a trans person to have the life they wish, then you are in violation of that bill if the court can prove that you were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the fact that they're trans.

    The fact that it's ambiguous matters, because transgender activists try to frame things like refusing to use a trans person's pronouns as hateful abuse. Hell, just look at @Endus. In this very thread he has argued that refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is abuse. Nathan Rambukkhana argued that discussing Jordan Peterson's ideas in a class made the class unsafe for trans students. It's not cut and dry. It's up to the courts to decide what is and isn't abuse and what is and isn't hateful.

    So hypothetically. If you refused to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, they could take you to court on the grounds that they felt abused, unsafe and unfairly targeted due to their gender identity. They might not win, but hell, they might. In my experience, it's usually the one that can afford the most expensive lawyers that wins in that case. Better hope the trans person you offended isn't rich, or you're fucked.

    Note that you won't go to jail if you're found in violation of Bill C-16. Unless you don't pay the fine, then you will go to jail.
    The biggest problem with the law is not the law itself, it's that gender identity and expression is based heavily on feelings and not a physical existence. It is also unfair for people to assume that others can gauge those feelings. It's a mess of a law that is disturbingly vague in some ways. Imo, this whole thing is a mess and reeks of people with identity issues that should be seeking professional help to deal with their states of confusion rather than going "REEEEEEEEEEEEEE" at everyone who doesn't care about what these individuals want to be called.

  3. #263
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    I disagree. I don't find kinship with others based on our identities, but rather our shared values or shared ideas. I don't feel any special connection to other white people or other men because I am white or a man, and don't think we should form a society based on these weird little arbitrary clubs we all belong to that none of us chose to be in, but rather were born into.
    First, I likely have a stronger sense of Identity because I am not an American by birth and only arrived here as a teen.

    Second, I'd argue that American White people being individualists or individuals is a major weakness in the game. You may choose to be an individualist liberal all you like, but the others won't play the game that way.

    The reason individualist libertarianism doesn't work is that it is incredibly easy to cheat the system. Sure, perhaps if everyone blinds themselves to groups, to ethnicity, to gender, to class, it would all work out. Partiality to in-group, as opposed to out-groups would be morally illegitimate because there ultimately is no real ‘us’ and ‘them’ in a strictly individualist liberal worldview. Therefore, we have to come up with a way of dealing with one-another – it’s not ‘us’ and them, it’s just ‘you’ and ‘me’. We’re just individuals. And in theory we would simply interact in transactional ways, everyone leaving each other alone and interacting as you would like.

    But that never holds up because there is a better way to play that game. To take advantage of it. The individualist Libertarian, AnCap or Liberal game blinds its players to collective groups cheating that game, and the only way to save the game of individualism is to exclude the cheats. But that is racism, fascism, bigotry, and ultimately requires a much bigger state to stop people from acting a certain way. What is to stop someone from only renting to members of their distinct tribe? From only hiring people in a certain area and using the mechanics of social shame and ostricism from effectively shutting people out. You may for example treat me as an individual, but you can't be certain I won't play by a different set of rules and within the context of that game, I've effectively cheated or swindled you out of it. When you come to me expecting reciprocity for treating me as an individual, being open, you might find I'm more interested in hiring my cousin, or really only renting to Welsh speakers with my same last (maiden) name, or only people from the town I was born in, or maybe just others born in the UK more broadly. You may treat me as an individual but I may not reciprocate that treatment.

    You might think to exclude me for this behaviour, but then you are not an individualist, to stop the cheat you have to cheat the game yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    One person in that room was seriously trying to make the argument that lobster neurons can give us valuable insight into how to organize a technologically advanced human society.
    It's part of "nature vs nurture" debate; hierarchies appear in lobsters so they cannot be purely social constructs (they don't have to be purely biological constructs either)

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurcus View Post
    I will do better. I will link you the full text of the billl. It's quite short. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...6/royal-assent

    I find the quote unnecessary due to the bill's length, but I'm going to quote it anyway, as I get the sense that you are the kind of person that will 'claim victory' if I don't provide you the information in the particular way that you like.







    I have bolded the parts I find particularly relevant. If you actually read the damn thing, it's ambiguous. By a strict reading of the bill, if you in any way infringe upon the opportunities of a trans person to have the life they wish, then you are in violation of that bill if the court can prove that you were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the fact that they're trans.

    The fact that it's ambiguous matters, because transgender activists try to frame things like refusing to use a trans person's pronouns as hateful abuse. Hell, just look at @Endus. In this very thread he has argued that refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is abuse. Nathan Rambukkhana argued that discussing Jordan Peterson's ideas in a class made the class unsafe for trans students. It's not cut and dry. It's up to the courts to decide what is and isn't abuse and what is and isn't hateful.

    So hypothetically. If you refused to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, they could take you to court on the grounds that they felt abused, unsafe and unfairly targeted due to their gender identity. They might not win, but hell, they might. In my experience, it's usually the one that can afford the most expensive lawyers that wins in that case. Better hope the trans person you offended isn't rich, or you're fucked.

    Note that you won't go to jail if you're found in violation of Bill C-16. Unless you don't pay the fine, then you will go to jail.
    The bill is just extending the same protections it grants to homosexuals and racial groups to trans people. This is not unique language. It already applies to those other groups, so can you show me how applying this language to those other groups has created some fascist dictatorship in Canada where you aren't allowed to say certain words?
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  6. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    Not letting those dirty terrorists into our country, obviously.

    That really does sound like what he's trying to say, he just doesn't have the balls to be honest about it.

  7. #267
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Yeah yeah yeah heard it all before. Your argument stopped making sense so you cry victim. Go away.
    My argument made sense, you just aren’t bright enough to understand simple concepts. That isn’t my fault.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I believe you've taken the ramblings of a handful of young dickhead liberals living at college, and made a faulty assumption that those views can be extrapolated onto a large segment of the left in general. I think you've bought into a very silly and transparent media narrative that is basically taking the late night TV "LOOK AT THIS IDIOT WE INTERVIEWED ON THE STREET" sketch and used it as a basis for classifying how hundreds of millions of people actually think.
    Or I have looked at how neoliberalism (and therefore globalism) has been the dominant ideology for several decades, and I realize that end-stage neoliberalism leads to disaster.

    I think that the 'SJWs' are just shills for neoliberalism without knowing it. I think that most people on this board who are of the left fall into the same category. Are you any different?
    Most people would rather die than think, and most people do. -Bertrand Russell
    Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It's part of "nature vs nurture" debate; hierarchies appear in lobsters so they cannot be purely social constructs (they don't have to be purely biological constructs either)
    This is exactly what I was just talking about with his vague bullshit sounding different to everyone. You are ignoring the whole part about similarities to humans and serotonin. You are ignoring that he is arguing this should inform how we structure human society.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    My argument made sense, you just aren’t bright enough to understand simple concepts. That isn’t my fault.
    Keep going with the insults, but let it never be forgotten that I made the last actual points in this argument. You just descended into whining and insults.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    Yup it's what it sounded like to me too, my dude.
    I actually have more respect for people who admit to their racism and xenophobia, than those who try to deny it. At least they are honest about their ignorance. Most people never make it to that point in their lives.

  11. #271
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Murdock View Post
    So what you are saying, is women shouldn't be allowed to own themselves?
    Anyone who wants to make themselves like a disingenuous idiot on national television in this day in age is free to do so, but they shouldn't expect there not to be repercussions when they bring on a controversial and extremely educated individual and basically get stood up and made to look like a fool for pushing their own agenda. Basically, Newman should have known what she was getting herself into, and by all indications from Peterson, she went from being genuine to a deranged lunatic at the drop of a hat. News is often about sensationalism, and that was all she was doing was trying to sensationalize and rationalize her agenda.

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Yeah yeah yeah heard it all before. Your argument stopped making sense so you cry victim. Go away.
    Kalis is a dude..
    So you are saying women can never be victims?

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Venant View Post
    Or I have looked at how neoliberalism (and therefore globalism) has been the dominant ideology for several decades, and I realize that end-stage neoliberalism leads to disaster.

    I think that the 'SJWs' are just shills for neoliberalism without knowing it. I think that most people on this board who are of the left fall into the same category. Are you any different?
    Neoliberalism is trash. And?
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  14. #274
    Titan I Push Buttons's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Because even looking at his statements in the most narrow way possible, saying that lobsters need hierarchies and humans have roughly similar nervous systems, therefore humans need hierarchies is fundamentally ridiculous. example:
    Only he didn't make that argument.

    He argued hierarchies were a natural product of evolution, not a human construct. He used lobsters as evidence of this argument in that they adhere to hierarchies and we are separated from them by hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

  15. #275
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Venant View Post
    Do you think that in-group preference is still useful? Or perhaps I should say, do you think that humans still need traits that are beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, or have humans stopped evolution? It seems like many people believe history has ended.
    Useful is a relative term. As I said in a previous post, it is an excellent survival strategy. Ultimately even Peterson tries to play the individualist libertarian game, but its really hollow and anyone who looks too deeply into it will see that. And yes, those types, the SJW's are very "End of History" esque in a respect, as is Peterson and the Individualist Libertarians. But it's a flawed game because group dynamics always come into play.

    The reason individualist libertarianism doesn't work is that it is incredibly easy to cheat the system. Sure, perhaps if everyone blinds themselves to groups, to ethnicity, to gender, to class, it would all work out. Partiality to in-group, as opposed to out-groups, would be morally illegitimate because there ultimately is no real ‘us’ and ‘them’ in a strict individualist liberal worldview. Therefore, we have to come up with a way of dealing with one-another – it’s not ‘us’ and them, it’s just ‘you’ and ‘me’. We’re just individuals. And in theory, we would simply interact in transactional ways, everyone leaving each other alone and interacting as you would like.

    But that never holds up because there is a better way to play that game. To take advantage of it. The individualist Libertarian, AnCap or Liberal game blinds its players to collective groups cheating that game, and the only way to save the game of individualism is to exclude the cheats. But that is racism, fascism, bigotry, and ultimately requires a much bigger state to stop people from acting a certain way. What is to stop someone from only renting to members of their distinct tribe? From only hiring people in a certain area and using the mechanics of social shame and ostracism from effectively shutting people out. You may, for example, treat me as an individual, but you can't be certain I won't play by a different set of rules and within the context of that game, I've effectively cheated or swindled you out of it. When you come to me expecting reciprocity for treating me as an individual, being open, you might find I'm more interested in hiring my cousin, or really only renting to Welsh speakers with my same last (maiden) name, or only people from the town I was born in, or maybe just others born in the UK more broadly. You may treat me as an individual but I may not reciprocate that treatment.

    You might think to exclude me from this behaviour, but then you are not an individualist, to stop the cheat you have to cheat the game yourself. The only way out of the trap is for either everyone to be as the same as physically possible, OR to accept you won't have perfect Liberalism, OR you will need a very powerful state to stop people from acting as they do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    I'm just not understand how the "tribes" have to be race/ethnicity/religion/gender/etc. Why can't they be based on ideas, shared values, and things that people actually have control over instead of the random universal lottery of being born in a specific place to a specific race who raised you around specific people.

    Again I think people of all backgrounds working towards a common goal ends in a better society than people of one specific creed all helping each other because they are of that creed.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I mean who admits to being irrational?

    Everyone has a rational for their irrational beliefs. If someone says they believe in ghosts, they of course have multiple stories to back it up, they don't just say "idk"
    Therein lies the problem, they will go to great lengths to try and justify their ignorance. That's why people who admit to it, are already ahead of the game. Now, there's some racists who will admit to their racism, and be proud of it... willing to justify it at any costs. Then there are the select few who hold that view, but are quasi-ashamed of it at some level. Those people can be saved. The others are beyond fixing.

  17. #277
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Keep going with the insults, but let it never be forgotten that I made the last actual points in this argument. You just descended into whining and insults.
    Pointing out you aren’t very bright isn’t so much an insult as an observation.

    You couldn’t even grasp that neo-Marxists might in some way not hold the exact same ideology as Marxists, even though holding the exact same ideology would render the prefix neo- obsolete.


    And Peterson isn’t saying we should live like lobsters, he’s pointing out that hierarchies are present in nature, so that claiming they are entirely a human social construct, as some do, is wrong.

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    Only he didn't make that argument.

    He argued hierarchies were a natural product of evolution, not a human construct. He used lobsters as evidence of this argument in that they adhere to hierarchies and we are separated from them by hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
    "And I use the lobster as an example because the lobster–we divulged from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago–common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies and they have a nervous system atuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin like our nervous system. And the nervous system of the lobster and of human beings is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters."
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  19. #279
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurcus View Post
    Hell, just look at Endus. In this very thread he has argued that refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is abuse.
    Specifically, and bear with me because this is a pedantic point but I'm tired of people misrepresenting me (ironically enough, in a thread complaining about an interviewer doing [i]exactly that), but I said that kind of behavior was abusive.

    Whether it qualifies as actionable abuse depends on other context.

    For instance, calling your wife a "cunt" once, laughing, because she kicked your ass at Street Fighter, that's "abusive", but not abuse. If there's a pattern of you using that behaviour to assault and harass her, that is abuse. Whether specific actions amount to abuse is a different standard than what I was talking about.

    Someone using abusive language isn't automatically something that needs action; it depends on context (like most things).


  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    Pointing out you aren’t very bright isn’t so much an insult as an observation.

    You couldn’t even grasp that neo-Marxists might in some way not hold the exact same ideology as Marxists, even though holding the exact same ideology would render the prefix neo- obsolete.


    And Peterson isn’t saying we should live like lobsters, he’s pointing out that hierarchies are present in nature, so that claiming they are entirely a human social construct, as some do, is wrong.
    Because your neo-marxist bullshit is meaningless. It is a meaningless term used to get out of having to do the work of intellectually defeating opponents. Nothing you described made any sense. You said identity politics is neo-marxism, even though marxism was explicitly about class and identity politics is used just as much by the right as the left. It's devoid of any coherent definition. It's just "LEFTY STUFF BAD NEO MARXISM I DONT LIKE"
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •