Aftermath of the bigoted channel 4 interview and other sensationalist muckrakers.

[Elegiac]

Where did I say people hate me? Where did I say I was right wing?

'You' is also a plural, and was in reference to the group in question.

Didn't you just say identity politics wasn't an issue and then you literally just did it?

I said it wasn't worth complaining about because it has been a thing since forever, not that it doesn't exist. (At least not in its actual sense, not the conservative rebranding to bitch about people that think gays and women should be treated like people)

I'll tell you why someone would rag on someone for being a tory

> Tory leader brings back fox hunting
>Labour voter to Tory voter
>Ah you voted Tory, you must like killing foxes then

You're deluding yourself if you think people on the left do not face this exact set of assumptions regarding partisan identity.

It's the same logic that made everyone assume if you voted Trump you were a nazi, there was a fucking sketch on live television implying that. You are free to be ignorant to a real issue, and you are free to make assumptions about me. However neither of this things changes a very real truth in society, saying what you truly believe, even if that belief doesn't hurt anyone can be legitimate problem.

The only place you're going to get bullied for being left wing is a right-wing forum. And possibly 4chan. Maybe it changes as you get older, I hope it does. But young, right wing millennials are legitimately targeted for it. None in that age group is afraid of saying they're left, this is not the case for the right. You yourself did it - you assumed I was a tory and then also went on to suggest why there might be a justifiable reason for people to rag on me for it. There is no justification for discrimination. And this is exactly what it is.

If the extent to which they are discriminated against is a few harsh criticisms, they got off pretty easy.

Again, you're failing to grasp why the right wing is so heavily criticised in certain environments - and it's not because 'white men'. It's because the right wing is associated with oppression, elitism, and discrimination and continues to this day to forward policies to that effect. Identifying as right wing is an explicit endorsement of inequality by definition.

[Elegiac]

"It's because the right wing is associated with oppression, elitism, and discrimination and continues to this day to forward policies to that effect. Identifying as right wing is an explicit endorsement of inequality by definition."
At this point I realise you are incapable of being objective, if you had said that from the start we'd have saved a lot of time.

Demonstrate where I'm wrong, then; because the left/right divide is a function of attitude towards inequality in society.

[Kronik85]

In the UK yes, I was talking about the US in this instance. Coal miners etc is a different argument, that was an extreme - I'm talking about recent history here. Identity politics is far worse than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago - comparable if not surpassing the extremes it was back in the 70's.

I should have been more clear, sorry. Kalis has not yet forgiven Labour for failing to collect his bins, if my Dad was still alive he still wouldn't be over Thatcher, infact the idea of putting a statue of her up in Parliament Square was just scuppered because there was a genuine risk of it being defecated on. These wounds linger.

And I disagree, Wolfie was a marxist, which was in no way a mainstream ideology in the time/ place, also he didn't care - I'm talking about people who do care but society rejects them, this isn't the alt-right trolls, these are genuine, good-minded right wingers.

Woflie was a parody based on University culture of the time. You had to swear that there was a Commie Club on your Campus, there were Commie Clubs on the Campus' of the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, they are not new. To this day Communism is not a mainstream ideology in the UK. I'm not trying to belittle you here but once you get off Campus you will find that it is not an accurate reflection of the Political leanings of the rest of society at large. What I am trying to tell you is to have hope, the rest of your life won't be being chased around by Marxists because you said you intended to vote Tory.

[Elegiac]

Kalis has not yet forgiven Labour for failing to collect his bins.

I may or may not have spat Sprite at my screen.

[Elegiac]

I'm a libertarian

*sighs deeply*

I should hope this means something different in the UK than it does here.

[Kronik85]

That is ultimately my hope, that this is a campus issue, but it's not isolated to campus, it's on the news, it's why people like milo or Ben Shapiro are famous etc so my fear is it doesn't go anywhere and this is just how things are.

I use my wife as a yard stick for "normal". I just asked her who Ben Shapiro or Milo was, she gave me a blank stare until her eyes just glazed over and drool ran from the corners of her mouth. It's safe to say she doesn't know who they are and hence they aren't famous, at least outside of certain corners of the internet. Once you hit the World of Workcraft your colleagues aren't likely to care all that much about Politics.

[Kronik85]

*sighs deeply*

I should hope this means something different in the UK than it does here.

I think it means the same thing everywhere. That you've probably spent too much time on internet message boards.

[Dispraise]

she gave me a blank stare until her eyes just glazed over and drool ran from the corners of her mouth.

Are you sure she's not having a stroke?

[Kronik85]

Are you sure she's not having a stroke?

More likely to be a glass of wine too far.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been working part/ full time jobs since I was 15 and I agree for the most part, but I suppose it depends on where you live/ work.

If you ever get anxious about it in the future just say this rosary 10 times.

"I do not live in California".

:P

[Reinaerd]

how about: irrational feminist gets owned by logic, facts and reason?

.
Thats what i got from the vid, that and an enormous sense of schadenfraude

[Endus]

Let's hear a real world example of where this new law could be used effectively in a scenario that wouldn't have been covered previously. I'm more than willing to listen.

Seriously?

Take literally any example of the prior law's use, transplant "gender identity or expression" for whatever class they were discriminated for in that particular instance, and there you go.

Literally all C-16 did was add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes. It didn't do anything else.

[Zython]

Exactly, look at all the white male celebs who talk about politics, they constantly self-depricate. I like how there's a real hatred against women who attack other women - but men who attack men seems fair game.

I really don't understand why people get so offended at the idea that society isn't perfect, or that they can improve. Do you really believe that this is the best our society can do? That we can possibly do? Isn't that kind of sad?

So many men have identity/ masculinity issues but he's told by society he has it better than everyone else just because he's the man. This is probably why the biggest group for suicides is white men, and not by a little but a shocking margin, I'm just wondering when we're all going to actually start treating everyone exactly the same, if that's ever going to happen.

Well, first of all, that's not quite true. They have the highest rate of successful suicides. It's not as wide when you take attempts into account. Secondly, it's more that archaic of ideas of masculinity convince men that emotions are weak, so they don't get the help or support they need. That's a big reason why toxic masculinity is so dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

"It's because the right wing is associated with oppression, elitism, and discrimination and continues to this day to forward policies to that effect. Identifying as right wing is an explicit endorsement of inequality by definition."

At this point I realise you are incapable of being objective, if you had said that from the start we'd have saved a lot of time.

Objective doesn't mean that all sides are concluded to be of equal merit. Sometimes certain ideas are objectively awful.

You wouldn't say that pro and anti-abolitionists should have their ideas judged to be of equal merit.

Right?

[Tierbook]

Seriously?

Take literally any example of the prior law's use, transplant "gender identity or expression" for whatever class they were discriminated for in that particular instance, and there you go.

Literally all C-16 did was add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes. It didn't do anything else.

What the fuck is a 'protected class'

[Endus]

What the fuck is a 'protected class'

Why ask about basic legal terminology in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/protected-class/

And so on.

[Zeek Daniels]

Seriously?

Take literally any example of the prior law's use, transplant "gender identity or expression" for whatever class they were discriminated for in that particular instance, and there you go.

Literally all C-16 did was add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes. It didn't do anything else.

Its not discrimination to not call someone a man or a woman. For instance if i went around calling men women and women men people would think i was weird prior to this law. They wouldnt say your discriminating against me and create a law to stop me from using my mouth and my brain to say and think what ever the hell i want.

Now if you feel that transgender people shouldnt be able to do certain things then thats discrimination. Like if you denied them a service.

Protected classes discriminate against people not in those classes. Just like affirmative action is racist. Quotas are racist when you have to hire or select a certain number of individuals from a certain group to meet a standard and you reject people more qualified. And dont pretend like these classes need these protections because that in and of itself is racist because that implies that they are inferior to everyone else the definition of racism.

[Endus]

Its not discrimination to not call someone a man or a woman. For instance if i went around calling men women and women men people would think i was weird prior to this law. They wouldnt say your discriminating against me and create a law to stop me from using my mouth and my brain to say and think what ever the hell i want.

Now if you feel that transgender people shouldnt be able to do certain things then thats discrimination. Like if you denied them a service.

Why do you folks never actually read the laws in question? This isn't how Canadian law on this issue works at all.

Protected classes discriminate against people not in those classes. Just like affirmative action is racist. Quotas are racist when you have to hire or select a certain number of individuals from a certain group to meet a standard and you reject people more qualified. And dont pretend like these classes need these protections because that in and of itself is racist because that implies that they are inferior to everyone else the definition of racism.

This is nonsense, and obviously false.

Let's go down the list as defined in the updated C-16, shall we?

Protected classes in Canada are;

Race
National or ethnic origin
Colour
Religion
Age
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Gender Identity or Expression
Marital Status
Family Status
Disability
Conviction for an offense you've been pardoned for etc.

Except for that very last one (which I can't imagine ever coming up in the negative), every single person on the planet falls under every single one of those classes. You can't discriminate against people "not in those classes", because every single human is part of all of them.

[artemishunter1]

Seriously?

Take literally any example of the prior law's use, transplant "gender identity or expression" for whatever class they were discriminated for in that particular instance, and there you go.

Literally all C-16 did was add "gender identity and expression" to the list of protected classes. It didn't do anything else.

if canada's protected classes work like Americans, then the protected classes can sue people in court. Thus, the protected classes can use C16 i.e. gov't force to force a behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you folks never actually read the laws in question? This isn't how Canadian law on this issue works at all.



This is nonsense, and obviously false.

Let's go down the list as defined in the updated C-16, shall we?

Protected classes in Canada are;

Race
National or ethnic origin
Colour
Religion
Age
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Gender Identity or Expression
Marital Status
Family Status
Disability
Conviction for an offense you've been pardoned for etc.

Except for that very last one (which I can't imagine ever coming up in the negative), every single person on the planet falls under every single one of those classes. You can't discriminate against people "not in those classes", because every single human is part of all of them.

do you think this works in reality? White, Straight and males are not going to be protected as it is not even now.

- - - Updated - - -

Good, I hope they stay checked out and leave governing to people actually invested in ensuring society runs smoothly rather than trolling 'libtards' for shits and giggles through incredibly awful policy.

liberals are disorganized people by birth. This is why liberals have always lead change in society. You liberals simply can not manage ANYTHING. If competent conservative people were not running things below you, the system would fall due to inherent chaos and everchanging nature of liberals.

- - - Updated - - -

No need, if we remove the bigots

here is the question, why should we even respect your pronouns? What does society get out of it?

[Endus]

if canada's protected classes work like Americans, then the protected classes can sue people in court. Thus, the protected classes can use C16 i.e. gov't force to force a behavior.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...3.html#docCont
318(3)
"No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General."
319(6)
"No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General."
320(7)
"No proceeding under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General."

Why not just check, first, rather than blindly disbelieving me?

do you think this works in reality? White, Straight and males are not going to be protected as it is not even now.

They already are. You're describing your own perception bias, here, not truth.

liberals are disorganized people by birth. This is why liberals have always lead change in society. You liberals simply can not manage ANYTHING. If competent conservative people were not running things below you, the system would fall due to inherent chaos and everchanging nature of liberals.

This is far-right wharrgarble nonsense, and doesn't reflect reality at all. Why do you listen to blatant propaganda bullshit? Because that's all you're parroting here.

[satimy]

I don't even know what you can say to people that think Jordan Peterson is a bad guy. But thats what the left has come to, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein are all considered dangerous nazis

[Deleted]

And yet, no explanation at all about how adding "gender identity and expression" to protected classes is "absurd".



You stated something that was not true. Pointing that out is not "flinging filth".



You're proving your own point to be false, and you won't admit it. Go back and read the first part again. Now, go and read the Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code sections in question. And take a few moments to actually think about what you're saying.



You aren't making an argument. It has a broad scope. That doesn't make it automatically "bad". "Assault" has a broad scope, too. It ensures that things don't slip through the cracks you necessarily create by over-defining things.

Yes, i have explained why it is an absurd law, you just keep on ignoring it.

No i stated a truth, you keep flinging filth in the hope that something sticks, it doesn't. Your "hyperbole" is something that is already happening because of this stupid bit of legislation. So again, you are wrong.

No im not, if you want to make this claim then you will have to support it. Religions are well defined, gender identities are not.

Yes im making an argument and you keep avoiding the point im making, but that is nothing new for you now is it. Laws arn't "broad" they never are, that is why we have so many of them. Assault isn't a broad term, you have all kinds of different assaults and they are all differently defined and punished.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you folks never actually read the laws in question? This isn't how Canadian law on this issue works at all.



This is nonsense, and obviously false.

Let's go down the list as defined in the updated C-16, shall we?

Protected classes in Canada are;

Race
National or ethnic origin
Colour
Religion
Age
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Gender Identity or Expression
Marital Status
Family Status
Disability
Conviction for an offense you've been pardoned for etc.

Except for that very last one (which I can't imagine ever coming up in the negative), every single person on the planet falls under every single one of those classes. You can't discriminate against people "not in those classes", because every single human is part of all of them.

Oh look, you do not understand what a protected group is/works, how typical..
No, not "everyone" falls under these classes, you need to be religious in order to get your religious views protected, not all ethnic origins are of a protected class, its not like white males have the same protection for this as lets say black people. If it where the case then "positive" discrimination could not be a thing, nor could hiring gender quota's a thing is this statement of yours had any truth in it at all. The same goes for colour, its not a protected class, some colors are protected, not all.
Age discrimination is still everywhere and its not something that everyone has to deal with, just old people.
Sexual orientation is one of the few that everyone is a part of, but it doesnt give any protection to cis people, only to none cis people. Affirmative action ensures that you can discriminate against cis but you can never discriminate against none cis for some reason.
"gender identity or expression" And here all hope is lost, i've explained why at length, you can read it again if you want to.
Marital status is something that everyone has, but, i do not think it has ever been an issue. I have never heard about someone being discriminated against because of their marital status.
Never heard about family status discrimination either..
Disability isn't something that everyone has either, so again not something that everyone is part off..

So no, not everyone is part of these protected classes, and you might like affirmative action, but giving one person a break because of their <insert protected group> is still discriminating against people not part of that group. You might find that a good thing, but that doesn't make it any less discriminatory.