Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[downzy]

18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I dunno man, I think free speech should be just that, complete and total.  I don't think there's such a thing as speech thats hurtful in that it, in and of itself, can do damage.  Its people who act on it that do the damage, as in go out and do some violent shit.  Other than that, shit, if we live in a hateful world then there's got to be a reason for that and you don't work anything out by supressing points of views, you kinda empower them actually, by acting like they're something to be afraid of when really the solution is to hear everybody out.  You don't have to agree but you can't solve a problem by hiding from it. 

There's nothing new under the sun and there's nothing under the sun that we should be afraid of to where we can't approach it with reason and tackle it sensibly.  Censorship, repression, that shit is pointless.  I think part of this has to do with an elite in society that deem the rest of or a large portion of society and thick and also potentially dangerous...but hey if thats what we are as a species then thats what we are, its got to be dealt with.

I think, personally, nothing should supercede freedom of speech, freedom of expression...even if whats being expressed is ugly.  Dialogue is the road to solutions, there is no such thing as a righteous monologue in this context, where one voice gets the deciding vote on what should or shouldn't be put out there.

A lot depends on context, don't you think?  

Too often when we talk about discussion and dialogue we assume that the more speech the better.  But much in the same way as we have stop lights to direct traffic, there are incidents when it comes to speech where guidance or rules are required to facilitate speech in a more constructive way.

Use this forum as an example.  We generally give a wide birth when it comes to what's allowed to be said, but there are limits.  We do not allow personal attacks and we generally try to limit repetition to keep conversations on track.  Some might disagree, but I think the balance we aim for is part of the reason why this remains the only GNR discussion forum that still has any life in it left.  Other forums have descended into ugly arenas for personal attacks or cults of personality.  We focus far less on content than we do on behaviour (as demonstrated by speech) and as such we're the only forum that continues to have stable and consistent participation.  For every person that gets turned off for being suspended for calling someone an asshole, we attract four or five more people who enjoy speaking their piece without concern of being personally attacked.

I don't agree that speech should be criminalized unless it enters the domain of harassment.  However, I have no objections to, and believe we should support, efforts that seek to move dialogue beyond unnecessary hurtful expressions.  It's not suppressing an opinion, but reorienting it in a manner that stems less from anger and hurt and more towards the genesis of the issue.  Take racial discourse as an example.  There's many ways to discuss and improve relation relations without resorting to racial slurs or derogatory language or imagery.  Words come loaded with meaning, history, and power, and efforts to move the discussion forward are only possible when certain words are avoided.  Again, that's not to suggest that those words should be criminalized (again, unless being used to intimidate or harass someone, mostly in conjunction with threats of violence), but that we only move to solutions and agreement when pressure is applied to elevate the discourse.

[action]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

I do agree that corporations and public employers have the right to fire employees based on both public and private speech. 

employers have the right to fire you for no reason at all. there is this misconception, where people wrongly assume an employee can only be fired when he screwed up. that's not true.

but there are certain rules to follow.

when an employer fires you for no reason at all, he needs to let you continue to work for a certain amount of time. the rules differ in each nation, but that's the gist of it.

things are differently when an employee has made a "serious mistake" which makes further cooperation "immediately, and completely" impossible. example: theft, violence... then, dismissal is immediate.

second catch: the employee can "assail" this dismissal before court, and ultimately, the judge will decide if the reason for immediate dismissal was grounded or not. if the judge consider the reason not serious enough, it's the employer that will have to restore the damage done to the employee.

in conclusion, no employer has the right to limit the constitutional freedom of speech in any shape, or form. ultimately, that's for the judge to decide. if the judge thinks the reason for dismissal was not serious enough, the dismissal is canceled.

[downzy]

1 minute ago, action said:

in conclusion, no employer has the right to limit the constitutional freedom of speech in any shape, or form. ultimately, that's for the judge to decide. if the judge thinks the reason for dismissal was not serious enough, the dismissal is canceled.

Perhaps this might be applicable only in Belgium.  

In the U.S., the first amendment only applies to federal employees, and there are limits to speech for federal employees (think otherwise?  Speak out of line while serving the military).  

Federal law bans discrimination on race, creed, religion, age, etc.  It does not ban discrimination on grounds of political association or speech.  

There are instances when political speech is protected and cannot be used to terminate employment.  But those are generally limited to:

1. Protected by state law - many states do have statutes that protect speech for those employed in the private sphere.
2. Allowing for political speech relating to workplace conditions (usually relating to unions).
3. political campaign materials - t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.
4. Speech that objects or complains about discrimination at work
5. Speech outline in a private contract. 

Moreover, many large corporate employers have employees sign value/morality clauses.  Speech, regardless of whether spoken while on the job or in private affairs, is still bound by the values clause signed in employer contracts.  

Courts have long held the right of employers to fire employees who engage in political discourse that is considered disruptive, threatening, or promoting discrimination.

In Canada, there is recourse for employees terminated for unsavoury private political speech, but generally it involves compensation and not reinstatement and additional damages.  

[J Dog]

8 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Here's the thing, if that many women are sexually assaulted...isn't that horrific enough? Why the need for the insane hyperbole "HALF OF ALL WOMEN ON THE PLANET ARE RAPED!"? I have reached the conclusion that it is because they don't really care that much about women. They don't care at all about men. What they care about is playing the victim/getting attention and having a topic to get self-righteous about. All this goes far beyond me or other white men being offended and irritated - it undermines feminism(the proper real kind) because actual bigots/retards will read their bullshit and then have ammo to clumsily disregard all women's issues.

This is the main problem with lots of issues. Things get so exaggerated and over the top and so out of control, you start to wonder if someone really truly cares about the issue, or are they just talking loud for some agenda, side taking soapbox. It can start to feel very not genuine and fake. This leads to people rolling their eyes and becoming almost a bit cold to the actual issue itself. Which sucks for the actual issue/victim.

Then after awhile certain words start to become numb. This is one reason all the racist talk didn't stop Trump from winning. After so many years of racist racist racist pc accusations, the word starts to lose weight. And it does feel like the word racist has lost some of its weight. By the time Trump rolled around, some were like, but that's racist!, and others were like, but was it THAT racist?

Trump would have never won a presidential election in the 90s talking the way he talked.

[action]

24 minutes ago, downzy said:

Perhaps this might be applicable only in Belgium.  

In the U.S., the first amendment only applies to federal employees, and there are limits to speech for federal employees (think otherwise?  Speak out of line while serving the military).  

Federal law bans discrimination on race, creed, religion, age, etc.  It does not ban discrimination on grounds of political association or speech.  

There are instances when political speech is protected and cannot be used to terminate employment.  But those are generally limited to:

1. Protected by state law - many states do have statutes that protect speech for those employed in the private sphere.
2. Allowing for political speech relating to workplace conditions (usually relating to unions).
3. political campaign materials - t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.
4. Speech that objects or complains about discrimination at work
5. Speech outline in a private contract. 

Moreover, many large corporate employers have employees sign value/morality clauses.  Speech, regardless of whether spoken while on the job or in private affairs, is still bound by the values clause signed in employer contracts.  

Courts have long held the right of employers to fire employees who engage in political discourse that is considered disruptive, threatening, or promoting discrimination.

In Canada, there is recourse for employees terminated for unsavoury private political speech, but generally it involves compensation and not reinstatement and additional damages.  

some great insights on US law. appreciated!

i know a thing or two on belgian law, but american law is still a bit exotic to me. speech outlined in a private contract? unthinkable around here! contitutional rights can't be limited by contract, in belgium.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

2. I have never said or thought the concept of the socially disadvantaged or discriminated is a myth. That is extremely sweeping and incorrect and I would vehemently oppose anyone stupid enough to believe that.

Please read my posts a little more carefully.  I never said that you consider the concept of disadvantaged or discriminated a myth. I was commenting about Peterson and the basis for much of what he argues.  In fact, the very next sentence gives you the benefit of the doubt that you don't actually consider such a sweeping statement to be true.

Quote

However, here's a good example of something I have questioned; the pay gap. I've watched a bunch of debates that have covered this. Not once have I ever seen actual evidence provided for this notion which I would assume would be constantly paraded around if true.  I've watched a bunch of debates that have covered this. Not once have I ever seen actual evidence provided for this notion which I would assume would be constantly paraded around if true. But it's always just hyperbolic whining. The impression I have is that people confuse wages with earnings; women have maternity leave(statistically speaking, I don't think something weird like each individual women is pregnant or whatever.) and are more inclined to prioritize things in their life like their children. This results in less hours worked overall as a gender. Which creates the impression of omg women have earned less. If I am wrong and you can be bothered please provide the proof and I will accept it as I don't have any agenda other than truth and reason. If I am wrong and the pay gap exists...why is this a thing? Why are employers not constantly sued into oblivion? Obviously if it's real then it's fucking unacceptable.

You have never seen actual evidence provided for the argument that there is a pay gap?  Really?  

There is a lot of examples both respect to men and women doing the same job but getting paid differently (doctors, Hollywood) or corporations giving far more senior management positions to men versus women despite equal qualifications (see here).  

As for women making less because they prioritize children over men, that's simply stating that in order to get ahead in life only women should jeopardized wealth over having a family in a way that a man never has to.  Men can keep on making the big bucks because the cost of having children isn't on them.  Moreover, the assumption in your post is that this is always a choice.  Many women are forced out of the work force because they can't afford day care or find a full time job that provides them the ability to raise a kid.  As the U.S. does not provide any maternity benefits, it becomes down less to priorities and more about necessity.  There's also evidence to suggest that when women enter a male dominated industry, pay drops.  Interestingly, when men enter a female-dominated industry, incomes go up.

Regardless, what I think is relevant here is this attempt to diminish or rationalize a pay gap because of biological reasons.  Yes, only women can have kids and are thus more likely to be the primary caregiver for the first few years of their child's life.  But this gap can be closed (perhaps not entirely) by expanding (or in the U.S., providing) maternity benefits that allow men to take time off work (recently announced in Canada) or companies offering more flexible schedules for new moms.  

Quote

This is why President Orange Mongoloid exists

Nope.  There are many other dumb reasons for why Trump is President, but there's little evidence to support the claim that Trump won largely because a backlash to political correctness.  Many Republicans candidates and nominees have been anti-PC for years.  

Quote

But I didn't simply say they're stupid, did I? I explained why. You're oversimplifying what I said to make your point.

People who take things too far/Idiots under the guise of being so-called progressively minded individuals discredit and invalidate the ideological group they belong to, if said group does not disown them

 Maybe I missed it, but you stated that they're stupid because they're stupid and that you're simply calling a spade a spade.  My only issue was that you were using a few bad apples to disparage an attitude that is largely concerned with respecting others.

And who would you need to disown them within this PC group to consider the PC group a-okay?  I'm a supporter of political correctness when and where appropriate and I see examples of people taking things too far?  Does that cut it?  

Quote

1. Yeah, it really does matter. Imbalance and sensationalism is unhealthy and unhelpful. There you go oversimplifying again. Using Chinese Democracy sales is a horrific analogy lol.

2. Your feeling is unfounded and wrong. What have I said that gives you the impression I want to undermine the fact there's a plague of sexual violence against women? A moment ago I fucking took you at your word with the sexual assault statistics you provided and described it as horrific. You're doing what those stupid feminists I've been complaining about did.

3. No.

Do you honestly think it matters whether there are a hundred million women on this planet who suffer from sexual violence versus 500 million?  Once we get into the hundreds of million, does it really matter what the actual number is?  Aren't you then focused on the trivial and wasting time and energy debating something irrelevant when everyone can agree that the problem is massive?

Quote

1. Those 10% are such stupid cunts though lol. It's very easy to get annoyed by them. But I definitely agree people shouldn't get carried away and think the whole world is like that. I don't, but I do think it has a presence in society which seems to be growing which I vehemently despise at any percentage. It's exactly like if I told you "Don't be mad at Trump supporters. Not everyone is a Trump supporter."

Such as? Common sense things like equal rights shouldn't count as political correctness imo. That shit is just basic logic and compassion. Literally children understand that shit.

There are assholes on both sides, just as there are on all issues.  And I don't believe all Republicans are Trump supporters nor do I believe that all people who voted for Trump are still with him.  The same could be said about the PC movement.  I don't subscribe to every nonsense protest, overreaction, or offence out there, but I still believe in efforts to respect others, accept the fact that structural advantages and disadvantages for various groups of people exist, and do what I can in my limited ways to help correct for such imbalances to make for a fairer society.  

I think there's not much cost to me personally in referring to a trans person with their chosen gender.   I think political correctness can help greatly in promoting a safer work environment where women aren't felt as lesser employees due to their gender.  I'm supportive of efforts to reduce or eliminate hurtful names that invoke painful legacies.  Specifically, efforts to repeal sports franchises with names that are insensitive to a particular group of people (so long as that group of people actually oppose the name).  I do not believe society should champion or immortalize individuals who fought for the right of their state to keep others in chains, and hence I'm supportive of taking down Confederate monuments and have them displayed in a more appropriate setting like a museum.  There are many active areas where political correctness still plays a roll.  Granted, many of the major gains have already been accomplished.  But that doesn't mean there aren't still areas where progress is needed.  

Political correctness has had a lot of victories that I think most would consider beneficial.  From the reduction of derogatory slurs towards racial groups to burgeoning acceptance of the gay individual and community, to an acceptance and celebration of other cultures.  And yes, equal rights is part of the success story of political correctness and it still has more work to do (examine the plague of mass incarceration of African American men in the U.S. or how America has responded to the opioid crisis versus the response to the crack epidemic).  Social justice is part and parcel with political correctness.  You can't have one with out the other.  

Quote

I only start taking issue with the extremity "There are 63 genders!" No, no there isn't. "It's completely normal and if you don't think so you're a piece of shit, fuck you!" No, no it isn't; but that's okay, normal is overrated.

  Maybe you and I are wrong, but I do agree that examples like this and responses to objections are over the top and need not be given much consideration.  

 

[Jakey Styley]

I've found that those who describe themselves as being "against feminists" are usually people who lack powerful/intelligent women in their lives who advocate for feminism. Their opinions are instead entirely formed by extreme and ridiculous examples of feminist activism reported on the internet (usually with an agenda). What feminism boils down to for me is that women are as capable as men and should be taken as seriously. 

 

Debating about political correctness always sucks, one side is talking about it as applied in its most sensible cases and the other is talking about it as applied in its worst cases. It requires a whole lot of delving into contexts. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Jakey Styley

[Gordon Comstock]

16 hours ago, downzy said:

I'd be curious if Peterson takes exception to the push to stop using the n-word.  Isn't demanding the end of using that word an example of compelled speech?

I have no idea on his opinion there, I haven't heard him asked about it.

Stepping aside from Peterson though, this is an honest question: Is there really a push for that in today's world? Is it not common sense? Do you think people should demand that nobody use that word? I'm not advocating for the word's use, and don't use it myself, but if somebody in this day and age wants to expose their ignorance, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If someone uses that word in a poor context, they have every right to do so as far as I'm concerned, and the people around them have every right to ridicule them for it.

Quote

I would need to hear examples of equality of outcome.  I'm supportive of equality of opportunity, as amorphous as that might be.

An example Peterson uses often for equality of outcome is Trudeau's cabinet ministers being 50% women, when only 26% (I think, I'll have to re-check that but it's approximately 1/4) of elected MP's are women. Trudeau's reasoning of "it's 2015" was absurd, since women do have an equal opportunity in this country politically.

Quote

As for C16, I'm fine with it.  You do realize it's limited to government employees, right?  No one is going to come and arrest or fine you because you call a trans person by their previous gender in a private conversation.  Want a job with the government?  Well, then step up to the 21st century, just like those in the 20th century were required to curtail racial or sexual slurs while working for the government.   

I didn't say anything about fines or arrest, just asked your thoughts on the bill.
However, I would argue that it's not a matter of "stepping up to the 21st century". I do believe that compelled speech, regardless of whether it's in government or public, is not only harmful to whatever the pursued cause is, but is quite a slippery slope as far as what could become regulated in the future.
Not only that, but why is somebody's "right" to not be offended more important than another persons right to free speech, especially in a context that revolves around mental illness? I honestly think it's better in the long term to not feed into mental illness (gender dysphoria/gender fluidity), and I don't think it's the same as racial or sexual issues of the past. And I say this as someone with lgbt friends, my last roommate was a lesbian dating a trans woman, it's not like I have a problem with a whole group of people. My problem is with a sub-group of those people who insist that there are hundreds of genders and pronouns, and who overreact and are insistent that they be referred to by words they've made up, which are (arguably) illegitimate.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gordon Comstock

[downzy]

4 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Yes. That is definitely a main factor for why he won. Are you saying there have been many republican candidates and nominees like Trump? Bush was also a retarded piece of shit, most of them are look at Reagan, but that doesn't disregard the point. But I agree there are probably many other reasons also.

There have been many Republicans who have ran on an anti-PC bent.  From Ted Cruz to Rick Santorum to Chris Christie, there have been many prior to Trump who railed against political correctness.  The big difference between those individuals and Trump was that Trump was and is crass and derogatory unseen in American politics since the waning days of segregationist politics in the 1960s and 1970s.  Trump is a genuine article, and I think that explains the personal fealty and devotion he garners amongst his base.

Quote

Yeah I stated that and I also gave the reasons why. Are you saying I should look at them as disrespectful idiots separate from feminism? Why? That's what their movement has become, at least in the West it would seem. I mean, I usually bother to identify them as modern/3rd wave, isn't that enough? I assume you and anyone else aren't leaping to extreme conclusions like I disparage those concerned with respecting others lol. When I've repeatedly said things like I consider equal rights an inherent result of a rational mind and an absolute necessity. How much more praising and condoning do I fucking have to do?

Yes, you shouldn't impugn feminism because some crackpots demand the acceptance of 63 genders or other less-grounded demands. Who says that's what feminism has become?  You?  On what basis?  Your assessment of feminism reminds me of how many in the 60s ad 70s would use the bellicose and confrontational language of Bobby Seal or H. Rap Brown to denigrate and undermine the entire Civil Rights movement.  Every ethos or movement has its outliers that overreach.  But they do not speak for the entire movement nor would you find much support for their positions amongst those within the civil rights or feminist movements.   

And I'm not sure why you're assuming that acceptance and promotion of equal rights is some uncontested and naturally derived consideration.  It's a lofty goal, but one that requires continued vigilance.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be assuming that equal rights is some universally accepted and settled norm.  To me, that's akin to someone saying that America overcame racism when they elected an African American as President.  

Quote

As far you're concerned, yes that cuts it. That's all I mean, that people should disown the stupid rogues from their group whenever they can. Otherwise, I will blame them too as they're enabling them. This is why I don't adhere to any ideology, because ideologies can be interpreted and change. Example, I think murder and rape is evil and unacceptable but I don't think myself and others should join a club in order to think so.

So anytime someone, somewhere says something asinine that overreaches on issues of trans rights and equality amongst sexes you need every feminist to get online and reject it outright?  Really?  That's what's necessary for you to feel comfortable with feminism or calls for equal and respectful treatment towards the LGBT community?  Why should we hold the entire community responsible its lunatic fringe?  Moreover, there is often great disagreement within various movements and communities.  Feminism isn't a monolith.   

Quote

Reality matters because exaggerating fear is unhealthy and unhelpful and leads to hyper sensationalized outlooks and views on society and the world we live in. Rape is never acceptable, it is disgusting and evil. I'm just saying there's a big difference in saying that and saying "There is a rapist in every room. They're everywhere. The rapists. They are all around us and we live in rape culture, people think rape is okay." That's fucking insane.

You're changing the goalposts here.  Your original objection was that you didn't agree that 780 million women in the world had been raped.  While I can't say with certainty whether that number it's true, it is reasonable to conclude that the number of women who have suffered sexual violence is in the hundreds of million.  Who is saying there's a rapist in every room and that they're everywhere?  And you do know what rape culture is right?  It's not that there are a lot of people who partake and support rape.  Rape culture argues that there's a tendency to blame victims of sexual assault and normalize male sexual violence.  Do I really need to post the myriad examples of this?  

Quote

I would not describe things like the civil rights movement as safe or politically correct. Political correctness comes after positive change occurs and stands on the shoulders of giants, arrogantly and noisily.

That seems like an arbitrary assessment on your part.  I think most who view things differently would understand that the power structures that underscored previous systems of control and oppression can be reimagined and transform into other forms of control or suppression.  Language is extremely powerful and can determine discourse, public sentiment, and be translated into public policy.  It's why Ronald Reagan invoked the concept of "welfare queen" in his election bid for President.  It's why acknowledging and efforts to combat structural racism that disproportionately affect African American men is perpetuated by langue.  Political correctness manifests itself in women speaking up about discriminatory and predatory behaviour in the workplace, most recently seen in the #metoo movement.  Political correctness isn't just some deranged woman on twitter complaining about some inane issue that few would get behind.  

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Stepping aside from Peterson though, this is an honest question: Is there really a push for that in today's world? Is it not common sense? Do you think people should demand that nobody use that word? I'm not advocating for the word's use, and don't use it myself, but if somebody in this day and age wants to expose their ignorance, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If someone uses that word in a poor context, they have every right to do so as far as I'm concerned, and the people around them have every right to ridicule them for it.

I don't disagree.  Again, I'm not for criminalizing language.  Allowing hateful or idiotic people to speak is the most effective means to determine who to ignore. But a large part of my response to your comments and Peterson in general relates to context.  I agree with you with respect to a person's right to say vile speech.  Yet context matters.  A professor has the right to use the n-word to refer to a student in his or her class, but that university should have the right to fire that professor for said speech.  We haven't reached the threshold of criminality, but a person's right to their speech should not usurp the right of their employer to keep them in their employ.  To use another example, say you ran a restaurant and one of your employees called a gay patron a faggot.  Do you want your restaurant and brand associated with such speech?  Should you not have the right to terminate the offending employee?  

So it is a form of compelled speech, just not one that relies on the criminal code to enforce.  

Quote

An example Peterson uses often for equality of outcome is Trudeau's cabinet ministers being 50% women, when only 26% (I think, I'll have to re-check that but it's approximately 1/4) of elected MP's are women. Trudeau's reasoning of "it's 2015" was absurd, since women do have an equal opportunity in this country politically.

I would be a little more accommodating of Peterson's criticism if he or others took the time to find examples of better candidate for the job than the women that were promoted to cabinet.  Has Peterson or anyone else who takes issue with Trudeau's cabinet found male representatives who would have been a better fit for a particular cabinet role?   Can it be demonstrated that any of the women selected were woefully unqualified for the positions they were given?  Perhaps I missed it, but Peterson's criticism is lazy and in my opinion panders to his audience.  

Moreover, it's a myth that PM cabinets have always been the product of merit.  Considerations of regional representation have almost always been a determinative factor in choosing a PM's caucus.  Merit and qualification has never been the only consideration when it comes to Canadian federal politics.  

I think this gets into the issue of correcting a historical imbalance of gender or racial disparity.  Or, as Macleans Magazine referred to Trudeau's cabinet, it was a recalibration of power for women in cabinet.  Where you side on this issue depends on whether you accept that women currently have an equal footing in politics as men.  You, and I would assume Peterson, assume that they do.  Trudeau, and many others, obviously feel other wise. (Answer honestly, do you think any woman could get away with acting and speaking like Doug Ford?).

Also, rationale for gender parity within his cabinet was not limited to Trudeau's 2015 comment, but unfortunately it didn't get the headlines like his quip did.  First, all the women selected were considered qualified at the time of their promotion.  Second, the decision was an effort to better reflect society at large, not just the gender makeup of elected officials.  Moreover, the fact that only 26 percent of liberal MPs are women isn't the fault of Trudeau; he doesn't get to decide who runs in each district.  By selecting a cabinet with gender parity, it was and is his hope to encourage more women to run.  Historically most Canadian representatives have been men.  Is this because they're more capable and innately politically superior or could societal and historical norms and gender roles have longstanding effects on who considers to run for politics?  As Trudeau said, mindsets take longer to shift and can be expedited by actions like having a cabinet with gender parity.

Quote

However, I would argue that it's not a matter of "stepping up to the 21st century". I do believe that compelled speech, regardless of whether it's in government or public, is not only harmful to whatever the pursued cause is, but is quite a slippery slope as far as what could become regulated in the future.
Not only that, but why is somebody's "right" to not be offended more important than another persons right to free speech, especially in a context that revolves around mental illness? I honestly think it's better in the long term to not feed into mental illness (gender dysphoria/gender fluidity), and I don't think it's the same as racial or sexual issues of the past. And I say this as someone with lgbt friends, my last roommate was a lesbian dating a trans woman, it's not like I have a problem with a whole group of people. My problem is with a sub-group of those people who insist that there are hundreds of genders and pronouns, and who overreact and are insistent that they be referred to by words they've made up, which are (arguably) illegitimate.

Peterson is well within his right to call a post-op male a female, but this right does not supersede his employer's right to terminate his employment should it violate the values or guidelines of his employer.  You might view this as compelled speech, since he has to sacrifice his employment to voice his opinion, but with every freedom comes responsibility.  Canadians have largely accepted the rights of transgender and are overwhelmingly supportive of protecting gender identity from discrimination.  Canadians have voted in a government that has sought to codify those protections.  It's not about being offended, it's about being respected.  So Peterson can continue to speak however he wants.  But he has to accept the consequences.  That might involve finding employment elsewhere, because here in Canada we by and large do not view trans individuals as people who suffer from mental illness and wish to give these people basic respect as people.  

[action]

there is an apparent "we against them" discours going on, at both sides. "we" and "them" is to be taken litterally. it's as if there are only good or bad people, no grey zones. you see these terms like "usually, someone who says this, is...." 90%, 1/2, all sweeping generalisations based on a whole lot of nothing.

I see a lot of arguments and willingness to suppress fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, expression, religion, also on both sides of the camp.

I see violent demonstrations. some people want peace, "with violence, if necessary"

I'm not one who usually participates in political discussions. i think they are not rock n roll. I may watch such a discussion from the sidelines, from time to time, and all it does is reinforce my previous points.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

@downzy Directing this at you also. Replying to this and then I'll read your links and reply to your post.

Who are these swamp-people who don't take women seriously? Do they really still exist on a widespread level? Speaking for myself, 3 of the 5 most important people in my life who I respect more than anyone are women. I actually complained to my mum about something downzy said one time, don't remember what it was, but she agreed with him! Which fucked me off to no end lol. If I seriously take a step back I think I am probably lazy and naive and do let YouTube videos and extreme examples affect me too much.

If the women in my life didn't exist, if women in general didn't exist - I would immediately kill myself. The world would be absolute dogshit. Honestly, my reaction to ever meeting a living breathing sexist would be to run around the room like "Whaaat the fuuuck is happeniiiiiing! You RETARD!" I would be stunned.

It's not just about conscious acts of discrimination.  I'm not perfect at this either.   I'm sure I made and continue to make mistakes while growing up with how I addressed women in the work place and have probably made some feel insignificant or belittled.   I think we all have implicit biases that we should strive to perceive and diminish.  We're all a little more racist and sexist than we either know or care to admit.  It's not limited to white males and having them doesn't make us bad people.  I think the effort to make society a fairer place that promotes equal opportunity is not a natural state but one that we should strive for anyway since we consider ourselves rational beings.  

I think the issue with the Internet is that it has the tendency to simply reinforce whatever you already think or feel.  I completely understand why white males might feel defensive.  We grew up at a time when we were told we could be anything when we  grew up (likely causing a sense of entitlement) and when we became of age we found that the life we expected was less available to us than what we had been told.  Furthermore, we're now told that we have advantages that others do not, even though it doesn't feel like it.  So places like 4chan, Reddit, and other forums become popular amongst the bitter and the angry.  I do think that Peterson's efforts to speak to these people and perhaps give them guidance is worth applauding.  But none of this invalidates the fact that there are still strong structural advantages for white men over any other demographic.  It is likely things are changing and the backlash is a response to this change.  But I do view the response as one based on emotion, not reasoned or substantiated evidence.  The "fuck them" attitude that now dominates male-centric online communities is becoming toxic, far beyond what I see coming from groups and individuals seeking and promoting inclusion and equal opportunities.  I do think entitlement exists on both sides, but where as one demands to be treated equally, the other rejects the fleeting loss of privilege was never apparent to them and even less so now.  

[Len Cnut]

11 hours ago, Jakey Styley said:

I've found that those who describe themselves as being "against feminists" are usually people who lack powerful/intelligent women in their lives who advocate for feminism. Their opinions are instead entirely formed by extreme and ridiculous examples of feminist activism reported on the internet (usually with an agenda). What feminism boils down to for me is that women are as capable as men and should be taken as seriously. 

 

Debating about political correctness always sucks, one side is talking about it as applied in its most sensible cases and the other is talking about it as applied in its worst cases. It requires a whole lot of delving into contexts. 

Bit reductive as assessments go, I don’t think I have any ‘powerful’ female feminism advocates in my life and I’m all for that shit.  Honestly you’re giving our species too much respect and their negative positions on things are not always a consequence of not knowing any better.

[Ace Nova]

..

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Graeme]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

No, men are not victims.  Either are women.  Or anyone else in Western Society.

Aye, you've convinced me. Decades of social science research are worth nothing. We're all born equal under free-market capitalism and everyone's success is entirely determined by their own merit as an individual, no-one is disadvantaged by their circumstances in any way.

Also, *Neither are women.

[Len Cnut]

45 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Aye, you've convinced me. Decades of social science research are worth nothing. We're all born equal under free-market capitalism and everyone's success is entirely determined by their own merit as an individual, no-one is disadvantaged by their circumstances in any way.

Also, *Neither are women.

The problem with the all 'x' are victims line of thought, which I believe can easily be applied to any number of groups, is that we're not able to fully realise why and how, let alone have the requisite sensibility and sensitivity to comprehend how to remedy the situation, if we even can.  I think a certain reductive way of thinking assumes that because it might be to case for whomever group someone is trying to suggest that this means we must all now tickle their bollocks with deerskin gloves on, which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Ace Nova]

5 hours ago, Graeme said:

Aye, you've convinced me. Decades of social science research are worth nothing. We're all born equal under free-market capitalism and everyone's success is entirely determined by their own merit as an individual, no-one is disadvantaged by their circumstances in any way.

Also, *Neither are women.

I'm not saying that either.  Obviously people are born under different circumstances but they're not "victims".  

[Gordon Comstock]

On 3/27/2018 at 9:05 PM, downzy said:

I don't disagree.  Again, I'm not for criminalizing language.  Allowing hateful or idiotic people to speak is the most effective means to determine who to ignore. But a large part of my response to your comments and Peterson in general relates to context.  I agree with you with respect to a person's right to say vile speech.  Yet context matters.  A professor has the right to use the n-word to refer to a student in his or her class, but that university should have the right to fire that professor for said speech.  We haven't reached the threshold of criminality, but a person's right to their speech should not usurp the right of their employer to keep them in their employ.  To use another example, say you ran a restaurant and one of your employees called a gay patron a hooray for tolerance!.  Do you want your restaurant and brand associated with such speech?  Should you not have the right to terminate the offending employee?  

So it is a form of compelled speech, just not one that relies on the criminal code to enforce.  

-----

I would be a little more accommodating of Peterson's criticism if he or others took the time to find examples of better candidate for the job than the women that were promoted to cabinet.  Has Peterson or anyone else who takes issue with Trudeau's cabinet found male representatives who would have been a better fit for a particular cabinet role?   Can it be demonstrated that any of the women selected were woefully unqualified for the positions they were given?  Perhaps I missed it, but Peterson's criticism is lazy and in my opinion panders to his audience.  

Moreover, it's a myth that PM cabinets have always been the product of merit.  Considerations of regional representation have almost always been a determinative factor in choosing a PM's caucus.  Merit and qualification has never been the only consideration when it comes to Canadian federal politics.  

I think this gets into the issue of correcting a historical imbalance of gender or racial disparity.  Or, as Macleans Magazine referred to Trudeau's cabinet, it was a recalibration of power for women in cabinet.  Where you side on this issue depends on whether you accept that women currently have an equal footing in politics as men.  You, and I would assume Peterson, assume that they do.  Trudeau, and many others, obviously feel other wise. (Answer honestly, do you think any woman could get away with acting and speaking like Doug Ford?).

Also, rationale for gender parity within his cabinet was not limited to Trudeau's 2015 comment, but unfortunately it didn't get the headlines like his quip did.  First, all the women selected were considered qualified at the time of their promotion.  Second, the decision was an effort to better reflect society at large, not just the gender makeup of elected officials.  Moreover, the fact that only 26 percent of liberal MPs are women isn't the fault of Trudeau; he doesn't get to decide who runs in each district.  By selecting a cabinet with gender parity, it was and is his hope to encourage more women to run.  Historically most Canadian representatives have been men.  Is this because they're more capable and innately politically superior or could societal and historical norms and gender roles have longstanding effects on who considers to run for politics?  As Trudeau said, mindsets take longer to shift and can be expedited by actions like having a cabinet with gender parity.

-----

Peterson is well within his right to call a post-op male a female, but this right does not supersede his employer's right to terminate his employment should it violate the values or guidelines of his employer.  You might view this as compelled speech, since he has to sacrifice his employment to voice his opinion, but with every freedom comes responsibility.  Canadians have largely accepted the rights of transgender and are overwhelmingly supportive of protecting gender identity from discrimination.  Canadians have voted in a government that has sought to codify those protections.  It's not about being offended, it's about being respected.  So Peterson can continue to speak however he wants.  But he has to accept the consequences.  That might involve finding employment elsewhere, because here in Canada we by and large do not view trans individuals as people who suffer from mental illness and wish to give these people basic respect as people.  

1. I think we're basically on the same page, and of course context matters, even in the extreme examples you mentioned. But I don't think n----- is comparable to the form of compelled speech Peterson generally refers to, which isn't "don't call me a slur", but more a case of, "You need to adopt my way of speaking [and thinking]" and adopting a never-ending list of pronouns. He's has said numerous times that if a trans student asked to be referred to as 'he or her' then he'd do so, it's the fact that there are now legalities and hyper-sensitivity around speech which can be and has been abused by a small percentage of people, the 'university uber-liberals/antifa' kinds of people, or 'radical leftist's'* as he calls them, that is the real problem.
*if you watch any of Peterson's videos, look for his Queens University one to see some of the absurdity surrounding his campus talks.

2. I'll forgive him for not posting a fantasy draft version of the cabinet.
Yes, I think Canadian women currently have the same opportunities as men do politically. Can you show me otherwise? Participation is lower from women, but it's not generally because of lack of opportunity.
(As far as acting like Ford, it'd honestly depend on the person, but I don't think many men or women would get away with it, even Ford didn't really get away with it for long).
As for the last paragraph, I don't think it's having or will have that great an effect on women in politics overall, I see the argument that it could encourage more women to get involved but I don't think women being less involved now has much to do with 'societal norms'. In fact the only 3 people in my family working in government are women, and they've all been in government for longer than Trudeau's been PM (one actually works with the Liberal Party in some capacity but I haven't talked to her recently and don't recall specifically what she does.)

3. How many people do you know with OCD? Or Aspergers? Those are mental illnesses, like gender dysphoria, but they are things that can be talked about fairly openly, and I think you assumed I had a negative, stigmatic way of describing gender dysphoria as such when really, it's just literally a mental illness. You can google it if you want but I assume you already knew that. In my personal experience, in private conversations, I've found that most people will agree to call a spade a spade. That doesn't mean that I or anyone I know intentionally disrespect people, but I think it's a fair point to bring up in a topic that involves dictating speech around what is potentially a never-ending list of 'offenses' or 'offensive speech'. I know I don't articulate my points as well as I'd like to but hopefully you can see that perspective.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Gordon Comstock

[Ace Spade]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:54 AM, AtariLegend said:

You mean a guy that appears in Tommy Robinson videoes rants about political correctness and gassing the Jews?

Yeah, very funny.

I honestly don't know anything about the guy. Even if he was making real, pro Nazi propaganda, do you as an (I assume) Englishman honestly believe he should be imprisoned for a Youtube video?

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

''Tommy Robinson'' does not sound like a white supremacist's name. It sounds more like a lower league midfielder's name. 

[AtariLegend]

8 hours ago, Ace Spade said:

Even if he was making real, pro Nazi propaganda, do you as an (I assume) Englishman honestly believe he should be imprisoned for a Youtube video?

British or Northern Irish and yes I do.

Some of us have grand parents that were still alive in the 1940's when 50 odd million people died as a result of people who rose to power on "propaganda".

[AtariLegend]

6 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

But trying to censor an ideology, no matter how pathetic and hateful it is, will help them not hurt them.

This is a myth and something people want to believe, but I don't think works. These types of ideologies doesn't work like a film you heard was banned, but want to see to check out the fuss.

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I think we can all agree that Nazis are scumbags. But trying to censor an ideology, no matter how pathetic and hateful it is, will help them not hurt them.

And regarding the Nazis they themselves prohibited rival political organisations and their propaganda. In other words, prohibiting far-right ideology makes you no better than the far-right. You would find yourself employing the exact same tactics as the Nazis!

[AtariLegend]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And regarding the Nazis they themselves prohibited rival political organisations and their propaganda. In other words, prohibiting far-right ideology makes you no better than the far-right. You would find yourself employing the exact same tactics as the Nazis!

So should we show IS videos on the BBC/ITV every day and stop shutting down their recruitment platforms, just to show we're better? 

What could possibly go wrong?

[DieselDaisy]

14 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

So should we show IS videos on the BBC/ITV every day and stop shutting down their recruitment platforms, just to show we're better? 

What could possibly go wrong?

Would the ratings be higher than Eastenders one wonders?