Do the new rules include -Don't by a hypocrite? or Don't be an attention seeking Nazi enabler?
Do the new rules include -Don't by a hypocrite? or Don't be an attention seeking Nazi enabler?
Ya Peterson was obviously trying to target the lazy/incompetent/malicious who either wouldn’t read or understand the bill. first thing I did when I heard about it was read the bill and see he was full of shit but it worked on a ton of people.Originally Posted by Endus;52834414I
Government Affiliated Snark
I don’t think he was radicalized personally I think he knew he could make money off of it and went out of his way to aim for such YouTube sections.
Nothing else makes sense as if he had given C16 even a passing glance he’d know it didn’t do any of the things he said it did let alone the fact that it was already in effect where he was which he of course never brings up because then he wouldn’t come out as railing against the left taking control of speech.
The written word and Legal precedent of harassment laws.
You could Harass some one by misgendering them if it was a repeated and targeted thing like if you were say filling there work locker with dresses mocking them ect. But the case that Peterson made of simply calling some one the wrong gender as a slip would go no where.
So pronoun use, or misuse, isn't covered by gender discrimination? Endus, you used the example of a boss calling me a miss and that counting, it isn't clear to me (yet) how this is different. Just to be clear on the law, if someone insists on being called a "Ze" and someone said "no", then this absolutely would not be covered by this law? Your use of the miss/mr example has thrown me a little, just want to clarify. If that is the case then fair enough.
- - - Updated - - -
So Ze/Xe has nothing to do with gender identity? A genuine question, pretty much everything I have seen online regarding that seems to strongly suggest that it is. If I misunderstood that then I hold my hands up.
No, I cited a hypothetical where your boss made a concerted effort to continuously and repeatedly demean and harass you, by deliberately misgendering you.
It would be harassment whether that was the tactic, or they were abusing you with racist epithets, or mocking you for being a woman, etc.
I linked the damned law. Why didn't you bother to read it for yourself? You'd have answered your own questions.
As wide as, say, race. And?
If you're doing it deliberately and repeatedly, knowing that your target is bothered by it? That's the definition of harassment, yes.And someone saying "call me Ze" and me saying "no" it is harassment
Edit: This seems to be a continuous misunderstanding, and I'm honestly confused as to whether you drew it from Peterson's disinformation campaign or are misrepresenting the bill for your own reasons. These laws don't criminalize or create civil liabilities for the accidental use of a particular word or phrase. It's always been about the intentional harassment, discrimination, and persecution of people for their membership in a protected class. Including gender identity doesn't widen it from that definition, it simply includes gender identity and expression among the classes it protects.
Your goal is the same; to bother and denigrate your target.and the same as using racist epithets? Really? Do you actually believe that?
Your motive is the same; intolerance and/or hatred for them over that particular characteristic.
How is it any materially different?
Last edited by Endus; 2020-11-25 at 09:26 PM.
(1) Working on your own problems does not negate your insights into helping people overcome theirs. If this were the case, no one who has ever struggled with addiction of any kind would ever be able to act as an advocate.
(2 & 3) Not necessarily, the rules he could be proposing could be build upon those previously set. It's only negating if they are contradictory.
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief
Meh there are always suckers who will follow charlatans like him they are free to be parted with their money by buying into whatever new BS he is selling.
I thought that one of the issues brought up with C-16 was that it wasn't specific in regards to what constitutes a valid "gender identity", essentially allowing nonsensical identities to be protected? For clarification, I'm not referring to those currently held under the LGBTQIA2s+ (such as the lesser known two spirit of various First Nations groups), but those self-ascribed that have no well-grounded basis for existing.
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief
The only thing I know about this guy is; 1. he's a transphobe? 2. He's a "traditionalist"
The first put him on the bubble for me early on and as soon as traditionalism crossed my Twitter feed with this guy attached, I immediately blocked and muted all that shit.
All traditions are complete garbage. And the desire to believe in such or gain anything from them, I personally view as useless and disgraceful. I don't give a shit about this guy.
Race and gender are both socially constructed. There is no all-encompassing set of characteristics that fully define the "black race" or "white race" in the same manner that there is no set which properly defines "man" and "woman".
For clarity, gender, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, and sex are all very different things.
Gender is the social construct which categorizes people into male and female based on secondary sexual characteristics.
Gender identity/expression is harder to summarize, but it is essentially the way which people perceive their own gender. A good example of this which I previously referred to is two spirit, which is a First Nations concept which outlines their idea of a third defined gender role.
Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to based on gender.
Sex is your biological sexuality.
If someone is born a woman, but identifies as a man, someone denying their identity or purposefully mislabeling them is hate or, at least, willfully and intentionally hurtful.If someone asserts that I identify as X, therefore you must refer to me as Y, and you don't agree, that doesn't necessitate hate, it doesn't require hate, only a zealot thinks that way.
Calling out the intentional misgendering of people is not the weaponization of bigotry, it's just describing the situation as-is.Some of the assertions surrounding gender identity are made with the certainty of someone proclaiming that water is wet, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical about some of these claims and it isn't bigotry to be so. The weaponisation of bigotry to prevent this is dishonest.
Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief
If they dont like it, they can QUIT working there and go elsewhere.
In these days people should cling to any work they can get.
"Another employee said “people were crying in the meeting about how Jordan Peterson has affected their lives.” They said one co-worker discussed how Peterson had radicalized their father and another talked about how publishing the book will negatively affect their non-binary friend. "
I can visualize these people with purple hair and a Verified twitter account, sad SJWs.
PROUD TRUMP SUPPORTER, #2024Trump #MAGA
PROUD TRUMP CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER #SaveEuropeWithTrump
PROUD SUPPORTER OF THE WALL
BLUE LIVES MATTER
NO TO ALL GUNCONTROL OR BACKGROUND CHECKS IN EUROPE
/s