Well, I wasn't finished, since you made a number of erroneous accusations against me.I already said that I was finished this conversation. I don’t want to be rude by not replying when being quoted but I simply don’t agree with your views. You are not changing my mind, I am not changing yours. So I am not wasting time playing word games with you.
All the best
You Sir, are brilliant.I just listed three examples, of which you comment on later in your own response. This sets the tone for how in depth your arguments are.
Jordan Peterson to name a famous one. You might also want to look at the track record of Laurentian University. They have a habit of forcing out Profs who do not tote the leftist party line.
The Government has never regulated speech with such a fine degree of granularity before in history, especially in a forum of those articulating opinions for the purposes of Government. That is Orwellian. Literally. In fact, we have clauses in our Charter of rights supposedly to prevent that. But when has that ever stopped the radical Left.
Since when is going to someone's employer, and forcing that employer to fire someone, simply because you don't agree with their political beliefs considered Critiquing someone? By that logic, acts of terrorism must simply be examples of strong criticism to you then.
No. Science defined it one way, and society went with that definition. Now a small segment of society is trying to ignore the science and redefine it, but society at large has not agreed to that yet, which is why that small segment of society is trying to strong arm everyone else to follow their lead. It's amazing how the left accuses the right of ignoring science, yet when it suits their own purposes, the left ignores science with the best of them.
And it wasn't acceptable when it was done then either. Are you saying that 2 wrongs make a right? It's amazing how often I hear the radical left use this justification, and believe in it. Which just goes to show their true nature. For them, It's not about improving the world, it is about revenge. Plain and simple. So what if people are still being oppressed, just as long as it's not your people right?
It is supremely selfish and self centred to expect that everyone in society at large has to completely ignore biological science, and reorient the very basic grammatical building blocks of the English language, which do not evolve that quickly by the way, ( Vocabulary evolves, grammar stays reliatively the same) simply because a minority of people want to live outside of that box. But given that the millennial generation were always told that the entire world revolved around them, this attitude isn't very surprising.
Of all the demands to be made from a society to accommodate inclusion that should be adhered to, that one goes too far. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but wars have been fought by societies to protect their language. Just ask Quebec. They were ready to leave Canada to ensure the sovereignty of their language.
No, those weren't examples of force unless, as I said, you think all social interaction and all law is inherently the use of force. (There are people who take this philosophical position and if this is the case with you, then fine.) The fact the only one you cared to specify didn't happen also seems to be a problem for your argument.I just listed three examples, of which you comment on later in your own response. This sets the tone for how in depth your arguments are.
You mean the Jordon Peterson who famously wasn't fired? That one?Jordan Peterson to name a famous one.
Only thing I can find on Laurentian University involves them firing hundreds of professors and gutting the Faculty of Arts, which somehow doesn't seem likely to be a hotbed of people refusing to "tote the leftist party line".You might also want to look at the track record of Laurentian University. They have a habit of forcing out Profs who do not tote the leftist party line.
The government has never regulated forms of address in the chamber? I find that hard to believe.The Government has never regulated speech with such a fine degree of granularity before in history, especially in a forum of those articulating opinions for the purposes of Government. That is Orwellian. Literally. In fact, we have clauses in our Charter of rights supposedly to prevent that. But when has that ever stopped the radical Left.
You're comparing being fired to terrorism now? Damn, you are a snowflake.Since when is going to someone's employer, and forcing that employer to fire someone, simply because you don't agree with their political beliefs considered Critiquing someone? By that logic, acts of terrorism must simply be examples of strong criticism to you then.
I see you haven't been following the science, but that's also irrelevant.No. Science defined it one way, and society went with that definition. Now a small segment of society is trying to ignore the science and redefine it, but society at large has not agreed to that yet, which is why that small segment of society is trying to strong arm everyone else to follow their lead. It's amazing how the left accuses the right of ignoring science, yet when it suits their own purposes, the left ignores science with the best of them.
Wow, that's a lot of projection there.And it wasn't acceptable when it was done then either. Are you saying that 2 wrongs make a right? It's amazing how often I hear the radical left use this justification, and believe in it. Which just goes to show their true nature. For them, It's not about improving the world, it is about revenge. Plain and simple. So what if people are still being oppressed, just as long as it's not your people right?
It's fascinating to see how easily triggered you are. You really do see this as some kind of attack on civilization itself.It is supremely selfish and self centred to expect that everyone in society at large has to completely ignore biological science, and reorient the very basic grammatical building blocks of the English language, which do not evolve that quickly by the way, ( Vocabulary evolves, grammar stays reliatively the same) simply because a minority of people want to live outside of that box. But given that the millennial generation were always told that the entire world revolved around them, this attitude isn't very surprising.
Of all the demands to be made from a society to accommodate inclusion that should be adhered to, that one goes too far. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but wars have been fought by societies to protect their language. Just ask Quebec. They were ready to leave Canada to ensure the sovereignty of their language.
Netflix series, actually.New movie coming out.
Dictionary MeaningNo, those weren't examples of force unless, as I said, you think all social interaction and all law is inherently the use of force. (There are people who take this philosophical position and if this is the case with you, then fine.) The fact the only one you cared to specify didn't happen also seems to be a problem for your argument.
You mean The Jordan Peterson whom U of T sanctioned and tried to fire, until he went public and got Lawyers involved? Yeah. That one.You mean the Jordon Peterson who famously wasn't fired? That one?
All that is online to find right now is the massive lay offs and financial disaster of the University, but they had multiple accounts of Firing, and attempting to fire Professors for their non left leaning political views a couple years ago. The stories were covered on CP24 at the time.Only thing I can find on Laurentian University involves them firing hundreds of professors and gutting the Faculty of Arts, which somehow doesn't seem likely to be a hotbed of people refusing to "tote the leftist party line".
I am sure you can provide me with the real scandal. (There may also be more than one Laurentian Universtiy of course and it could just be the recent scandal is making anything else difficult to find.)
Try Bill C-16The government has never regulated forms of address in the chamber? I find that hard to believe.
But, again, I don't know what law you are referring to. I don't seem to find any such reference to such a law.
No. I'm projecting the logic you laid down comparing such to simple critiquing.You're comparing being fired to terrorism now? Damn, you are a snowflake.
But this rash of people being fired for their political beliefs? How widespread is it?
I mean, yes, people have been doing this since forever and it is shitty.
Is your only complaint that now someone might do it to you?
Do you support "at-will" work? Do you support any right for an employer to fire anyone?
Under what conditions? Do you think employees should have strong support for bringing suits of wrongful termination?
Because if you suddenly discovered that sometimes people get fired for shitty reasons, I hate to break it to you that this isn't a new thing.
I would be interested in hearing of a case of someone being fired for using the wrong pronoun with someone though, I haven't actually heard of such a case.
The science behind the cellular biology of Males and Females has been pretty consistent, and I don't think has changed radically in the last 5 years.I see you haven't been following the science, but that's also irrelevant.
Science can inform society's views, but it doesn't dictate them.
Since science itself is a social consensus process, it isn't surprising that it is also often contested and society needs to make decisions within those boundaries.
Absolutely I would defend people to not be fired for being "non-gender conforming". Just as I would defend people to not being fired for the colour of their skin. My Issue is not with their lifestyle, my issue is with them demanding that I have to re-orient the very building blocks of the English language around their lifestyle.Wow, that's a lot of projection there.
No. As above, I am pointing out that pretending this is new and suddenly NOW is an outrage is disingenuous. Unless you are saying that you are intending to defend people to not be fired for being non-gender conforming (a position I doubt given all you have said).
No. I see this as an understandably selfish act from a group of people, that have been oppressed for so long regarding everything about their lifestyle, that when things finally start to improve, and they see light at the end of the tunnel, they try to grab any and everything they can without thought, or regard of if one of the things they are grabbing for is really fair to everyone else. It is a natural reaction. Much like starving people, when finally given food, often eat themselves to death in their first meal.It's fascinating to see how easily triggered you are. You really do see this as some kind of attack on civilization itself.
Of that we can agree, but this particular point has not been agreed upon by a majority, not by a long shot. The left, however, tries to make it appear that way by shutting down any discourse, and attempting to coerce and bully those who present a differing opinion, into silence.Still, you are right. A major point of any democracy is to find ways to negotiate conflicts between invested groups in a society without it turning violent.
That means, sometimes, that you disagree profoundly and if the majority of the people insist on a culture and norms that you cannot abide you are faced with a difficult decision about your place in society.
I hope you find your way to acceptance.
Cool. You have the philosophical position that all social interaction is Force. Like I said, that's got a long tradition behind it and while I don't particularly find that definition useful, it is clarifying.Dictionary Meaning
Force
Coercion or Compulsion
If a person is being Coerced to do something against their will by threat of retaliation, that is Force, and every one of my examples fits that definition.
Not all forms of force requires a gun.
They tried to fire him and he had to deflect them with lawyers you say?You mean The Jordan Peterson whom U of T sanctioned and tried to fire, until he went public and got Lawyers involved? Yeah. That one.
I will see if I can find them, then.All that is online to find right now is the massive lay offs and financial disaster of the University, but they had multiple accounts of Firing, and attempting to fire Professors for their non left leaning political views a couple years ago. The stories were covered on CP24 at the time.
That was a bill about criminal law, it didn't have anything to do with forms of address in the House. Are you thinking of a different law?Try Bill C-16
So your argument is that a TV show can't fire someone who they think is going to affect the ratings of their show?No. I'm projecting the logic you laid down comparing such to simple critiquing.
And one needs only looks as far as Disney and Gina Carano to find an example. There are many more, but why should I have to do all the research for you.
Well. You never bothered to learn about science, the history of science, STS, or even apparently the basics of Thomas Khun and the concept of the paradigm.The science behind the cellular biology of Males and Females has been pretty consistent, and I don't think has changed radically in the last 5 years.
And Science most definitely is not a SOCIAL consensus process. The scientific process of theorizing, and then conducting controlled experimentation that either proves or disproves the theory, has absolutely nothing to do with SOCIAL consensus. Even Scientific peer review is based on data obtained through objective measurement that is repeatable.
That statement alone pretty much nullifies everything else you have said.
So what are your limits on that? Given language is plastic and ever evolving, how far are you willing to go for this?Absolutely I would defend people to not be fired for being "non-gender conforming". Just as I would defend people to not being fired for the colour of their skin. My Issue is not with their lifestyle, my issue is with them demanding that I have to re-orient the very building blocks of the English language around their lifestyle.
That you think this is a relevant example really shows how completely you fail to grasp what is being discussed.This would be no different than a group of Star Trek Fans demanding that everyone else in Society must now speak in Klingon, simply because that is the way they want to communicate. And as big of a Star Trek fan as I am, I would be opposed to this as well.
Interesting.No. I see this as an understandably selfish act from a group of people, that have been oppressed for so long regarding everything about their lifestyle, that when things finally start to improve, and they see light at the end of the tunnel, they try to grab any and everything they can without thought, or regard of if one of the things they are grabbing for is really fair to everyone else. It is a natural reaction. Much like starving people, when finally given food, often eat themselves to death in their first meal.
But just because it is understandable doesn't make it right.
Ah! So if society agrees this is better, you will do it? You are just fighting because you think you still might win?Of that we can agree, but this particular point has not been agreed upon by a majority, not by a long shot.
I asked. You interpreted it as an attack.You attempted to do this with me earlier. Just because I do not agree with this particular issue, you labelled me as someone who supports unfairly firing someone because of their Lifestyle. You basically labelled me a Bigot.
But your entire argument appears to be "they are wrong and they aren't allowed to talk about it".The left also does this with labelling people racists for bring up legitimate issues in race relation topics. The left tries to shut down the dissenting viewpoints, to create the illusion that the majority of society feels the way they do.
I don't see where I made that statement. I have the position that any forms of social interaction that involves Coercion or Compulsion under threat of retaliation is force.Cool. You have the philosophical position that all social interaction is Force. Like I said, that's got a long tradition behind it and while I don't particularly find that definition useful, it is clarifying.
Jordan Peterson's experience with U of T over his criticism of gender pronouns is well documented. I'm sure you can find everything about U of T's actions towards him with a simple search. Your ignorance of the example does not invalidate the example.They tried to fire him and he had to deflect them with lawyers you say?
There was a lawsuit? The threat of a lawsuit? There was formal action to fire him or begin firing procedures?
I'm sure you can produce all of that. I don't pay that much attention to Peterson's stunts, so it is entirely possible this is real and not him fundraising off of "My enemies are trying to silence me!".
Nope, my mistake was forgetting how broad the law actually was. As it was changes to the Human rights Code, it also encompasses legislating language used in the House.That was a bill about criminal law, it didn't have anything to do with forms of address in the House. Are you thinking of a different law?
Would you still define the situation that way if the TV shows criteria for estimating a ratings decline was the person making Social media comments in support of Gay Marriage?So your argument is that a TV show can't fire someone who they think is going to affect the ratings of their show?
Curious.
I have. And if my memory serves, Khun was primarily focused on Scientific consensus, which is different from Social consensus. I know he did theorize about Social consensus having been used, and leaking into Scientific Consensus in the past. However, I think it is important to point out that most opinion of Social Consensus in Science is that it is undesirable. As it taints the scientific process.Well. You never bothered to learn about science, the history of science, STS, or even apparently the basics of Thomas Khun and the concept of the paradigm.
OK. Well. That's a lot to catch up on.
Exactly. Language evolves. And just like evolution it is a random occurrence. It is not engineered, and it is not forced.So what are your limits on that? Given language is plastic and ever evolving, how far are you willing to go for this?
The same could be said about you for not seeing how it is a relevant example.That you think this is a relevant example really shows how completely you fail to grasp what is being discussed.
I don't recall French Canadians demanding that all Canadians replace English with French.I presume you feel that French Canadians being asked to have access to services in French is also something ridiculous? If you don't, do you understand the difference?
I accepted the premise of your first Sentence of negotiating conflict without it turning violent.Ah! So if society agrees this is better, you will do it? You are just fighting because you think you still might win?
You fundamentally accept the premise!
You asked?I asked. You interpreted it as an attack.
The part underlined in bold sounds less like a question, and more like an accusation.Unless you are saying that you are intending to defend people to not be fired for being non-gender conforming (a position I doubt given all you have said).
Not even sure what this last statement even applies to. Which argument? The point you just quoted before this statement?But your entire argument appears to be "they are wrong and they aren't allowed to talk about it".
It's true. You're far too lost in the fog about the basics of science and society and don't seem to even be clear about what you're saying you believe.This is rapidly getting to the point where this discussion has exhausted being a cogent debate,
She just used it as a marketing ploy.My take is that Demi truly believes she is non-binary. So, I believe she believes she is non-binary. Whether her belief is supported by biology/science is another matter.
Because every time I read an article or hear a story with the use of they them when referring to one person it irks me to no end. "Wait what group, oh its one of those" over and over. Every time I see it, it gets on my nerves. It's very jarring and thus it does change if not my day, at least my 15 minutes. I don't get upset with whom/who as I don't know the difference myself, likewise people often don't know the difference between then and than, There, Their, They're. However some people do get upset and it isn't because they use terms like snowflake it's because incorrect useage of grammar annoys them as they understand the rules of grammar. If anything I'd suspect your typical grammar national socialist would be less inclined to use the term snowflake than your average slob.
Using They Their when referring to a particular person is wrong and it isn't an error people normally make so you get used to it. It's a bit like saying Me fail English, that's unpossible.
But yeah, if you are the right sort of people, everyone has to accept your bullshit and shut the fuck up. I get it.
It's quite a bit different from asking people to call you a different name variant.
It is also scads different from a trans person being asked to be referred to by the other pronouns as those pronouns are still meant to be addressed by a single person. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, just to get along, I'll call it a duck even if we all know it's a chicken. Although my willingness to do so is less and less as time goes on.
Gotta be tough living with all that hate…Because every time I read an article or hear a story with the use of they them when referring to one person it irks me to no end. "Wait what group, oh its one of those" over and over. Every time I see it, it gets on my nerves. It's very jarring and thus it does change if not my day, at least my 15 minutes. I don't get upset with whom/who as I don't know the difference myself, likewise people often don't know the difference between then and than, There, Their, They're. However some people do get upset and it isn't because they use terms like snowflake it's because incorrect useage of grammar annoys them as they understand the rules of grammar. If anything I'd suspect your typical grammar national socialist would be less inclined to use the term snowflake than your average slob.
Using They Their when referring to a particular person is wrong and it isn't an error people normally make so you get used to it. It's a bit like saying Me fail English, that's unpossible.
But yeah, if you are the right sort of people, everyone has to accept your bullshit and shut the fuck up. I get it.
It's quite a bit different from asking people to call you a different name variant.
It is also scads different from a trans person being asked to be referred to by the other pronouns as those pronouns are still meant to be addressed by a single person. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, just to get along, I'll call it a duck even if we all know it's a chicken. Although my willingness to do so is less and less as time goes on.
Must be tough living with all that hate.She is not non-binary because no one is non-binary. There are 2 sexes: male and female. That's it.
If she got pregnant, a doctor would (hopefully) never say, "by every available metric, you are pregnant, but
since you perceive yourself to be non-binary I guess you've just gained some weight." That would be insane.
I'll assume she truly thinks she's non-binary. Fine. Lots of people have distorted perceptions of themselves.
People think they're better looking than what they are. They think they're wealthy when their savings account
proves otherwise. All that matters is the actual truth.
If by 'non-binary', she means she doesn't feel feminine all the time then, sure, I'll buy that. No one feels 100 percent
masculine or feminine all the time, and we all have interests that go against the grain of what is typical of our sex.
But that doesn't mean you aren't that sex, it just means you are a nuanced person within that sex.
Anyway, all this non-binary shit needs to stop it's fucking ridiculous.
And it'll always be this way, thus "they" will always be fighting a losing battle.I agree.
I live by a simple rule, I calls it as I sees it.
My philosophy is this;
If you are a guy identifying as a woman, and I see you and call you "he", it's not my fault. You failed at your stated goal of being a woman. You still look like a Guy. Try harder.
I shouldn't have to guess what to call someone, beyond what visual information I have at hand.
When you look more like a woman than a man, I will call you "she".
Simple as that.
So many questions, so few answers.Can two non-binary people engage in sex? Asking for a friend.
It’s seems to be your side battling to stop it.So many questions, so few answers.
This "non-binary" pronoun charade is in vogue in the West. It's what happens when a civilization has run out of legit battles to fight. It's a battle that gives stupid people validation. It won't last.
Must be tough living with all that trans fragilityGotta be tough living with all that hate…