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

[Super Kami Dende]

Is anyone surprised? like really? All Leftists and SJW's have shown is that Authoritarianism is not a strictly Right-Wing stance regardless of how much they try to make it seem so.

I'm against Authoritarianism in all shapes and forms. The only problem is, "progressives" try to make their Authoritarian views sound like they are actually Good for society.

[Freighter]

No, it's penalizing certain types of abusive use of words. If you call someone "she", and they say "I'm a dude", and you say "sorry, he", nothing bad has happened and there's no grounds for being charged with anything. If they say "I'm a dude" and you insist on calling them by female pronouns, that is what's banned.

That's so fucking stupid it's almost unbelievable but considering that it's implemented in Canada, it seems to be real. How the hell did you allow for such laws to pass?

[rda]

That's so fucking stupid it's almost unbelievable but considering that it's implemented in Canada, it seems to be real. How the hell did you allow for such laws to pass?

All the countries that impose such laws onto themselves are doing is auto-dropping from the race for progress and future. Instead of doing what's significant and useful, they get busy in nonsense. If this continues for 20-30 years, the world will just move on to rockets and other stuff while countries like current Canada will still be busy fighting over gender identity issues, who should be allowed to speak on university campuses, what percentage of women there has to be in the director's board of a company and similar BS.

[Deleted]

Is anyone surprised? like really? All Leftists and SJW's have shown is that Authoritarianism is not a strictly Right-Wing stance regardless of how much they try to make it seem so.

I'm against Authoritarianism in all shapes and forms. The only problem is, "progressives" try to make their Authoritarian views sound like they are actually Good for society.

And then they wonder why people like trump get to be elected

[rda]

/I partly misread Endus, apologies, etc, deleting the post

[PosPosPos]

ROFL

No, that's very different from shoplifting because in a particular case of shoplifting the damage is clearly seen and the doubt is only about how efficient one can be at stopping it, but in the case of a woman accusing someone else of calling her a man on purpose the damage is NOT clearly seen and the doubt is exactly about whether it happened or not.

Frankly, Endus, you are being illogical all the time. Every other reply from you I see contains a misrepresentation or a logical mistake or worse, etc. I don't know (or care) why that is, but it just is.

Don't worry too much, alt-righters are mentally incapable of knowing better regardless of how obvious reality is so whether it's legal or not doesn't matter for them.

[Kalis]

Don't worry too much, alt-righters are mentally incapable of knowing better regardless of how obvious reality is so whether it's legal or not doesn't matter for them.

You’ve previously accused Corbyn supporters of being alt-right, so your definition may not be accurate.

[Endus]

Oh look, you do not understand what a protected group is/works, how typical..

This seems to be the root of your issue.

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.

You're completely and utterly wrong, here. All these classes apply to the very groups you deny that they apply to. Yes, "Irish" is an ethnicity, and thus it's protected (to pick an example). Yes, "white" is a skin colour, that's protected. Yes, "straight" is a sexual orientation, you cannot be discriminated against for that. And so on. When it comes to entries like religion and disability, the lack of such is also included in the class; you cannot be discriminated against for a lack of either.

You're so obviously and blatantly wrong on this it's absolutely baffling. You may as well be claiming that down is up, and cats are dogs. That's the level of wrong you're operating at, here.

[melodramocracy]

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

Shapiro can make some absolutely valid points, and tries to come across as objective, but lets his political viewpoint come into play a bit too often. As far as the other two, I agree. Their interview with Joe Rogan was an interesting watch.

[Endus]

All the countries that impose such laws onto themselves are doing is auto-dropping from the race for progress and future. Instead of doing what's significant and useful, they get busy in nonsense. If this continues for 20-30 years, the world will just move on to rockets and other stuff while countries like current Canada will still be busy fighting over gender identity issues, who should be allowed to speak on university campuses, what percentage of women there has to be in the director's board of a company and similar BS.

Yeah, the entire Western world seems to sure be doing poorly. Even China's only really started to pick up as they've shifted further in this direction.

[melodramocracy]

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.

https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-j...-c-16-correct/

There's a bit more to this entire story than what the law itself specifies. The article does try to skirt around whether or not disgruntled students can cite this law in proceedings against him, if he chooses not to adhere to their whims. That's how this whole thing started.

Refraining from addressing you a certain way is vastly different than addressing you in a discriminatory fashion.

[Theodarzna]

You have to recognize that there is nothing more up exciting to some people than vague rules easily abused by activist cranks in positions of power and an unwarranted sense of self importance.

[Scathbais]

Sure you can. We already do that with religion, for instance.

This is where you, again, start flat-out making stuff up because sticking to the facts doesn't support your desired outrage.

To quote you: " That's an overtly false statement".

Our constitution is a document designed to set the limits government in numerous ways. One of those ways is to protect religion from government interference. Apples and Oranges Endus, apples and oranges.

[Rennadrel]

You’ve previously accused Corbyn supporters of being alt-right, so your definition may not be accurate.

Ignore the disingenuous troll, he calls everyone an alt-righter even when they are centrists.

[ro9ue]

No, it's penalizing certain types of abusive use of words. If you call someone "she", and they say "I'm a dude", and you say "sorry, he", nothing bad has happened and there's no grounds for being charged with anything. If they say "I'm a dude" and you insist on calling them by female pronouns, that is what's banned.

You highlighted a very simple example. The issue comes into play where there's now things like Zee, Zer and Otherkin stuff. To force someone to start adapting made up language is the issue. Giving the government the power to enforce laws based on that is absolutely idiotic.

Should I be able to classify myself as my own individual gender and now be able to force everyone to call me precisely what I want with the ability to utilize the law into forcing them to say that?

Stunningly moronic.

[Deleted]

Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Ben Shapiro etc are superstars, and the current thought leaders for a growing portion of the population - by far the most rational people in the room

They are the new Hitchens, Dawkins, etc (and that's pretty funny considering Joe Rogan is on that list, somehow) - and yes, that's partly why Trump won

It's because the technocratic left is full of people like Endus, people with education but who got bogged down into unsustainable positions of mindless feminism, biology-denial and gender identity garbage

Until the regressive/authoritarian left leaves feminism and intersectionality behind and admits gender identity is not a social construct, and maybe that men need equivalent reproductive rights to women, they will continue to lose to rational people who don't let their emotions get ahead of biology and scientific fact

[Deleted]

This seems to be the root of your issue.


You're completely and utterly wrong, here. All these classes apply to the very groups you deny that they apply to. Yes, "Irish" is an ethnicity, and thus it's protected (to pick an example). Yes, "white" is a skin colour, that's protected. Yes, "straight" is a sexual orientation, you cannot be discriminated against for that. And so on. When it comes to entries like religion and disability, the lack of such is also included in the class; you cannot be discriminated against for a lack of either.

You're so obviously and blatantly wrong on this it's absolutely baffling. You may as well be claiming that down is up, and cats are dogs. That's the level of wrong you're operating at, here.

Right, saying that im completely and utterly wrong doesn't change anything even a one bit. Saying that "white" is a skin color and therefore protected is just a load of bullshit. It is still very much legal to not hire white people due to affirmative action, they would not be hired because of their skin color. These "protections" differ from case to case, one color will not get the same kind of protection as other colors. Again, just because you think this kind of discrimination is okay doesn't make it "not discrimination".

And then you regress again to your favorite thing of doing, shaming in the hope people will agree with you. This also happens allot in kindergarten, maybe you should go back to you peers there, they might be more in your range of intellectual ability.

[Endus]

Right, saying that im completely and utterly wrong doesn't change anything even a one bit. Saying that "white" is a skin color and therefore protected is just a load of bullshit.

That's false. Repeating the falsehood over and over doesn't make it true. You're completely wrong on this. It's why "black" is not a protected class, but "colour" is. Because it is not restricted in the way you're claiming, without providing any shred of evidence to back you, when a simple reading of the law directly contradicts you.

It is still very much legal to not hire white people due to affirmative action, they would not be hired because of their skin color.

That's not how affirmative action works, no. If you can't stick to the actual facts, you aren't going to get far with this. Affirmative action policies only come into effect if you've already been preferentially hiring/sending offers to some group(s) preferentially.

You want a specific example? There's historically-black colleges in the USA whose student bodies are still largely African-American. They have affirmative action programs. That work in favor of other groups, including white applicants. You're just flat-out wrong on this. Stop listening to stupid propaganda points, and look at the facts with an open mind.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...9&slug=1483827

And then you regress again to your favorite thing of doing, shaming in the hope people will agree with you. This also happens allot in kindergarten, maybe you should go back to you peers there, they might be more in your range of intellectual ability.

Telling you that you're egregiously wrong isn't "shaming you". It's trying to get you to realize that you're saying things that aren't true, and to take a moment to look at the facts again, and maybe realize that.

Or at least, since we're not the only people watching this, demonstrate to the audience that you're wrong. I'm well aware that I might not get through to you. But you're not the only audience I have, here.

[Moralgy]

Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Ben Shapiro etc are superstars, and the current thought leaders for a growing portion of the population - by far the most rational people in the room

They are the new Hitchens, Dawkins, etc (and that's pretty funny considering Joe Rogan is on that list, somehow) - and yes, that's partly why Trump won

It's because the technocratic left is full of people like Endus, people with education but who got bogged down into unsustainable positions of mindless feminism, biology-denial and gender identity garbage

Until the regressive/authoritarian left leaves feminism and intersectionality behind and admits gender identity is not a social construct, and maybe that men need equivalent reproductive rights to women, they will continue to lose to rational people who don't let their emotions get ahead of biology and scientific fact

I miss when you at least pretended to be an intellectual.

[Theodarzna]

Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Ben Shapiro etc are superstars, and the current thought leaders for a growing portion of the population - by far the most rational people in the room

They are the new Hitchens, Dawkins, etc (and that's pretty funny considering Joe Rogan is on that list, somehow) - and yes, that's partly why Trump won

It's because the technocratic left is full of people like Endus, people with education but who got bogged down into unsustainable positions of mindless feminism, biology-denial and gender identity garbage

Until the regressive/authoritarian left leaves feminism and intersectionality behind and admits gender identity is not a social construct, and maybe that men need equivalent reproductive rights to women, they will continue to lose to rational people who don't let their emotions get ahead of biology and scientific fact

I would not call those individuals thought leaders, but they are an obvious stepping stone. The fact is that particularly the type of politics you describe just simply is untenable and easily battered, but survives through a regime of censorship and it being the prefered ideology of elite classes today. Its an entrenched ideology, but has no merit.

But I would not call the people you named necessarily thought leaders as none of them sincerely articulate anything remarkably different from people like Endus for example, with perhaps Ben Shapiro being the most distinct, but even then that disagreement is more about minutae than it is about any substantive political disagreement.

- - - Updated - - -

I miss when you at least pretended to be an intellectual.

What would be an intellectual in your view?