Author Topic: Politics in 2018  (Read 142651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1025 on: March 08, 2018, 14:51:15 »
Right, that's pretty clear, you can't discriminate against someone based on their gender identity or expression, and I'm behind that 100%.

Is it considered discriminatory, though, to refuse to use someone's preferred pronoun?

Rude; yes. That's like the course instructor choosing to call you Sally because he doesn't want to have to pronounce Zalachenko every time you F*** up. Is that considered discriminatory?

I'm not making a point, I'm legitimately asking. If someone informed me, after calling them "Sir" that they preferred to be call "Mx", I'd oblige. If the guy I was standing next to said "screw that, you look like a Sir, I'm calling you Sir", I'd call that guy and ******* and think less of him, but I'm not convinced, yet, that that should be a human rights violation.

Good question. Hopefully, it can be left as a matter of  politeness and consideration, and maybe even logic.

To a certain extent, I can see  the concern transgender people might have. I see it like this. If your name was Bob, but you decide to have it legally changed to "Bill", why would people persist in calling you Bob?  Wouldn't you be right to insist on being called by your correct name, since that's how you want to identify yourself?

In the same way, if people once knew you as male and called you "he/him", but you made the decision to change your gender identity to female (because that's what you really believed you were), doesn't it follow that people should call you "she/her"?

I guess it gets a bit more confusing for people who consider themselves gender neutral, but it seems common decency to me that you refer to people in the way they prefer.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,707
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1026 on: March 08, 2018, 14:54:21 »
I don't want to spin this into a male vs female thing. Women should make the same as men for doing the same job, full stop.  Similar jobs? Well that's not the same job (right?).  During the G20 summit some Police officers, which included females, were making something sick like $800 a day they said with overtime and all that when corporals, who at that moment in time were doing the same security task, were making standard corporals pay like $120 a day or whatever.

I picked a male dominated field and my house boss picked a female dominated one. She made $20'000 more than me last year (and 5 of those months I was away from my family).

The mail carrier thing is an interesting point but at first glance that seems to be a matter of urban vs rural rather than male vs female. It would be a story if male mail carriers in the country made more money than female mail carriers.
Here is the article: http://www.macleans.ca/society/why-do-men-make-more-money-than-women/

Offline kratz

    Fall: Sweater Weather.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 247,388
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,114
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1027 on: March 08, 2018, 14:58:11 »
I can work with common decency, allowing my own freedoms of speech.

I did flip when I heard of being forced / compelled to use terms that I never heard of,
nor understand. Why?

The direction laws and policy are headed see the pendulum swinging too far in one direction.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1028 on: March 08, 2018, 15:08:04 »
An attractive, attention-grabbing leader can attract votes, even if there is little or no substance behind them. A less flashy leader may have the best judgement and the soundest policies but still not stand a chance.


Reminds of something I read,

“It's seduction, Pete. He'll back the country into a corner with his charm, like it's a woman. When America sees that it's a choice between Jack and twitchy old Dick Nixon, who do you think they'll get between the sheets with?”

James Ellroy.

Perhaps a similar political phenomenon exists in Canada? 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 15:13:27 by mariomike »

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 210,039
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,710
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1029 on: March 08, 2018, 16:49:19 »
India... the trip that keeps on giving:

Gatecrashers and a run on the Crown Royal: The other screw-ups on Trudeau’s India trip

Quote
The National Post has also learned that Surrey, B.C., MP Randeep Sarai and Winnipeg MP Kevin Lamoureux posed for pictures with a former Punjab state cabinet minister who is under investigation for his role in an international drug cartel. (Sarai, recall, is already embroiled in controversy for his role in convicted terrorist Jaspal Atwal attending events on the trip.)
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1030 on: March 08, 2018, 17:11:59 »
Comedy Central of the North.... ::)

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1031 on: March 08, 2018, 18:34:23 »
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ted-morton-the-trudeau-liberals-are-campaigning-on-strangling-our-oil-industry

Ted Morton: The Trudeau Liberals are campaigning on strangling our oil industry

When you replace the National Energy Board with a new agency named the Impact Assessment Agency, the message is clear: environmental impact is replacing economic benefit as Canada’s primary policy focus

March 6, 2018 6:30 AM EST

Last Updated March 6, 2018 6:30 AM EST

"Last month, we learned from Scotiabank that lack of export pipeline capacity and the resulting discount on Canadian oil will cost the Canadian economy $15.6 billion a year, or nearly $43 million a day. That loss affects provincial and federal revenues as much as corporate income. We are all losing.

"Also last month came the unveiling of the Trudeau government’s new suite of policies for reviewing and approving major energy infrastructure projects, such as oil and gas pipelines.

"So is there anything in the new rules that will address our $43-million-a-day leak to our Southern neighbour? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. The new process appears to further increase uncertainty for future pipeline proponents and investors.

"At the symbolic level, the messaging is problematic. When you replace an agency named the National Energy Board (NEB) with a new agency named the Impact Assessment Agency (IAA), the message is clear: environmental impact is replacing economic benefit as Canada’s primary policy focus when it comes to new energy projects.

"The details are equally discouraging. The proposed changes broaden the number of criteria that a new pipeline must meet. These now include not just climate change and enhanced Aboriginal consultation, but also “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” For a pipeline?"

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1032 on: March 08, 2018, 18:41:26 »
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeau-is-an-insult-to-feminism-and-to-seriousness/

Trudeau is an insult to feminism – and to seriousness

Margaret Wente

Published March 5, 2018

Updated 1 day ago

"After that, he came home to introduce his relentlessly female-friendly budget (the one that made 358 references to “gender”). The best that can be said is that nobody minded it too much. Few of the females I know seemed particularly grateful for the extra-special treatment. Like the Indians, they just felt condescended to. “I’m sick of gender politics,” one friend groused to me. “What matters is that we can’t get anything in Asia right.”

"But pandering is what Mr. Trudeau does best. He wants to be more feminist than the feminists and more Bollywood than Shah Rukh Khan. The trouble is that he’s trying way too hard. So he just comes off as opportunistic and condescending.

"Both the India trip and the budget - both of which should be routine affairs – have exposed the worst defects of Mr. Trudeau and his team. They are all politics and no policy; all play-acting and no substance. Just last year the international media were styling Mr. Trudeau as “the free world’s best hope,” as Rolling Stone breathlessly put it. Now, he’s Mr. Dressup. The scornful headlines from the global media were nothing short of epic. “Trudeau’s India trip is a total disaster - and he has only himself to blame,” went one headline in The Washington Post.

"We have some hard lessons to learn. The India trip exposed Mr. Trudeau and his team as shallow, fundamentally unserious, and seriously incompetent. The budget document was far less harmful; it merely checked off all the usual social-justice boxes. In addition to a new paternity leave, it included more money for female entrepreneurs, $23-million for new multiculturalism programs and a national anti-racism plan, $214-million to remove racial barriers, promote gender equality, and combat homophobia and transphobia, and other funding for “racialized and immigrant women.”

"Somehow I doubt that the magic incantation of the word “gender” is enough to win the hearts of middle-class women.

"What’s interesting here is not the amounts of money, which are relatively small, but the world view, which comes straight from a gender-studies course. Women as a gender need special help because they are automatically oppressed, and “racialized” women need even more special help. Instead of being individuals with different preferences, goals, beliefs, and interests, all Canadians are defined by our inherent traits of gender, ethnicity, class, race and sexual orientation, and are arranged in a sort of hierarchy of oppression. This appears to be the intellectual framework of Mr. Trudeau’s brain trust.

"The Liberals have a long and robust tradition of pandering to ethnic voters. Now they have divided everyone but white men into minority groups. It’s all about identity politics now. The fight for a colour- and gender-blind society has been replaced by a vision that sees nothing but.

"But people – even women – may be getting tired of it. Maybe people – even women – have higher priorities than being pandered to. A startling new Ipsos poll, taken shortly after Mr. Trudeau’s disastrous India trip, found that the Liberals would get only 33 per cent of the vote if an election were held today − versus 38 per cent for the Conservatives. The Liberal strategy has been to drive a gender wedge between women and the Conservatives. But now they and the Conservatives are tied among women. Meanwhile, the gender gap among male voters has reached a startling 9 percentage points in favour of the Conservatives.

"One opinion poll doesn’t mean much on its own. But somehow I doubt that the magic incantation of the word “gender” is enough to win the hearts of middle-class women. Women, after all, want what men want: leadership in tough times, a steady hand and seriousness of purpose at the top, someone who will not make a complete hash of things that should be relatively easy to pull off. Because if he screws up something simple, what happens when the going gets rough?"

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1033 on: March 08, 2018, 19:01:48 »
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-perhaps-justin-trudeaus-india-trip-could-have-been-salvaged-with-some-elephants

Rex Murphy: Perhaps Justin Trudeau's India trip could have been salvaged with some elephants?

It’ll be a cold day in Delhi before the Indian government shuts down the Taj Mahal for a Canadian dignitary again

"There were a number of first-class opportunities missed on the Prime Minister’s costume tour of the great democratic state of India. The merest child, let alone the wizened sages of the PMO, could have told them that there should have been elephants, with Justin and Sophie doing yoga stands inside the howdah. How much more striking is a namaste from the back of a shrieking pachyderm.

"Most likely his planners were just careless, or what is the same thing, not up on their Kipling, as they very well should be.

"Well, he’s back in Canada now, but as with every good vacation, the memory lingers on. So much indeed, that in this week of Canada’s first full feminist budget (almost scoured clean, as Andrew Coyne has noted of, well, economics) it was the trip not the budget that summoned the eyes and ears of every Canadian.

"Now while debacle, mess, embarrassment, disgrace, waste, stupidity and gaucherie have earned their standing as descriptors of the eight-day folly, the term “odd” has not quite got the exercise it seriously deserves. Above all, the trip was just plain old-fashioned odd - odd, not as opposite to even, but as kissing cousin to weird."

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 434,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,575
  • Crewman
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1034 on: March 08, 2018, 19:44:33 »
Saw Trudeau's video promoting Woman's day.  All I could think of was Max Headroom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF9XGtPhWLY
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 109,041
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1035 on: March 08, 2018, 21:38:30 »
Good question. Hopefully, it can be left as a matter of  politeness and consideration, and maybe even logic.

To a certain extent, I can see  the concern transgender people might have. I see it like this. If your name was Bob, but you decide to have it legally changed to "Bill", why would people persist in calling you Bob?  Wouldn't you be right to insist on being called by your correct name, since that's how you want to identify yourself?

In the same way, if people once knew you as male and called you "he/him", but you made the decision to change your gender identity to female (because that's what you really believed you were), doesn't it follow that people should call you "she/her"?

I guess it gets a bit more confusing for people who consider themselves gender neutral, but it seems common decency to me that you refer to people in the way they prefer.

It is common decency, but that's it and that's all. We can't make every action that does not follow common decency illegal. And to not follow common decency to be a human rights violation? The idea is ludicrous. The test is very easy.... is someone committing violence towards someone by not following their pronouns? No? Then the appropriate response is not violence (forcible confinement). This is why the radical left has come up with terms like "microaggression" and tries to say that these things cause "harm," to people.... because aggression is violence, and harm is the result of violence, so therefore, the appropriate response to it is violence. They are literally trying to control language to make the use of violence against deniers legitimate.

Dr. Petersen has already said he'd use someone's preferred pronouns if they asked in a courteous manner. On the TVO clip, he was asked what pronoun he would use for the transgender woman on the panel if she were his student and he said, "she." The transgender woman, by the way, was on Dr. Petersen's side about almost everything (this is important since the left claims to be the official voice of transgender people which is just not the case). I also asked a transgender acquaintance of mine and she is completely on Dr. Petersen's side.

But that's not enough. He is transphobic, vile, Nazi, etc etc etc.... simply for daring to:
1. not support compelling others to do so through force; and
2. for disagreeing that there are more than 2 genders.

On point #2, they still teach in genetics classes there are two biological sexes, male and female. There are anomalies, of course, there are also people born with 9 fingers but we teach that humans have 10 fingers. However, the humanities professors will literally tell people that the science faculty abandoned that idea decades ago. The opening statement of one of Petersen's adversaries on the TVO special was, "Basically, it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex." And on the idea of cis-normative perspective / gender binary (that there are male and female)... "it's not my view I just know that for over 50 years scientist have shown that that's not true." Here is the now infamous TVO clip where he makes this claim (recommend watching the whole thing but the numpty starts making these points @ 10:40) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

If you watch the whole thing you will hear him talk about how Jordan Petersen "abuses" students, etc... again... an attempt to frame Petersen as using violence and therefore violence (locking him up in cage) is a legitimate reaction.

EDIT: I think this is worth a thread split at this point since this is much more than a Politics 2018 issue and I think others also want to continue discussing it.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 21:41:17 by ballz »
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 264,266
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,251
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1036 on: March 08, 2018, 23:11:58 »
Quote
"The details are equally discouraging. The proposed changes broaden the number of criteria that a new pipeline must meet. These now include not just climate change and enhanced Aboriginal consultation, but also “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” For a pipeline?"


If we don't do a proper study we might install a pipeline that identifies as an oiler tanker, how embarrassing would that be.  I'd like to ensure I'm using the proper pronoun when addressing the pipeline too.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1037 on: March 09, 2018, 05:22:02 »
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/03/08/priorities-trudeau-says-veterans-asking-can-afford-give-2018-budget-hikes-foreign-aid-spending-2-billion/

PRIORITIES: Trudeau Says Veterans Are “Asking For More Than We Can Afford To Give,” But His 2018 Budget Hikes Foreign Aid Spending By $2 BILLION

Spencer Fernando March 8, 2018

If our country can’t afford to help those who sacrificed everything for us, how can we afford to send billions more in taxpayers money overseas?

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,707
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1038 on: March 09, 2018, 05:26:51 »
He’s funding the social causes that matter to him.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 288
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1039 on: March 09, 2018, 05:56:29 »
Dr. Petersen has already said he'd use someone's preferred pronouns if they asked in a courteous manner. On the TVO clip, he was asked what pronoun he would use for the transgender woman on the panel if she were his student and he said, "she." The transgender woman, by the way, was on Dr. Petersen's side about almost everything (this is important since the left claims to be the official voice of transgender people which is just not the case). I also asked a transgender acquaintance of mine and she is completely on Dr. Petersen's side.

I think this is a big part of the issue. The reality is everyone has a different opinion about everything no matter your race, skin colour, gender, sex, etc. Identity politics is the belief that because you are 'X' then your beliefs must be 'X'. You can definitely see a correlation between certain groups and certain beliefs, but in no way is it standard. If you believe that is the case then the reality is you actually might be racist/sexist.

The irony of all these 'tolerant' groups is they actually are the racist/sexist ones who actively attack anyone who is in their minds 'intolerant'. Talks about things like institutionalized racism when they literally are creating it in the education system shows how far as a society we are going from values such as equality.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1040 on: March 09, 2018, 07:14:49 »
It is common decency, but that's it and that's all. We can't make every action that does not follow common decency illegal. And to not follow common decency to be a human rights violation? The idea is ludicrous. The test is very easy.... is someone committing violence towards someone by not following their pronouns? No? Then the appropriate response is not violence (forcible confinement). This is why the radical left has come up with terms like "microaggression" and tries to say that these things cause "harm," to people.... because aggression is violence, and harm is the result of violence, so therefore, the appropriate response to it is violence. They are literally trying to control language to make the use of violence against deniers legitimate....

I agree with you. And, as we have both noted, we both know people in the LGBTQ community, whom we treat well and decently, so I doubt we are LGBTQ-phobic.

As a caveat, though, I would say that you can "harm" a person without violence: denying them a job, not promoting them, or firing them solely on the basis of who they are, is harmful as far as I can see. But that isn't actually the point here.

I tend to group these far-left types in the same boat as the "cultural appropriation" crew: worrying about things that actually don't matter all that much, and  at the same time by their antics actually undermining good and useful intentions to see that all people are treated fairly.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 264,266
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,251
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1041 on: March 09, 2018, 08:36:57 »
Sorry but this whole pronoun stuff is ridiculous. There's two genders and a very smile minority of people who want to make up their own. If someone wants to base their whole life around being called MR or Zer or Der then that's great for them. I don't exactly see the lot of these people as major productive members in our society but they're Canadian so call people by whatever they want to be called by. 

It's crazy that I can face legal action for calling Zer Smith Mr Smith by accident but Gerald Butts can call Canadians Nazis and get away with it.


The Alt-Left are actively using violence to censor and shut down free speech running around screaming everyone is a nazi facist and anything they disagree with is hate speech. 
It's great to read the faculty in Kingston didn't shut down Peterson's speech and the school actually stood up to these lunatics.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1042 on: March 09, 2018, 17:25:57 »
My pronoun, should any of them ever ask, will be "Master".

Back to Trudeau...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-trump-tariffs-analysis-wherry-1.4565696

How contending with Trump might help Trudeau move past the India debacle

Prime Minister contends with tariff threats after an embarrassing trip abroad

By Aaron Wherry, CBC News  Posted: Mar 08, 2018 4:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 08, 2018 4:00 AM ET

Trudeau has no ability to "contend with" President Trump whatsoever; it is very much the latter in the position of power.

I didn't find the article to be of much interest, but was particularly amused by a comment from one Jill Jenkins: "Best meme yet....Re-electing Trudeau would be like backing up the Titanic and hitting the iceberg again..."

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 87,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,912
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1043 on: March 09, 2018, 18:58:18 »
Master,

Of course Trump has a position of power.  When they say contend It is along the lines of how he will cope with or deal with the issue that is Donald Trump.  Right now the Liberals look like they handled the Tariff issue or at least Chrysta Frieland did.  Trudeau wants to be the anti trump. And that will play well with some people.

This Tariff thing was a lucky break for Trudeau.  No worries, I’m sure there will be more gaffes to come.

Optio

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 109,041
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1044 on: March 09, 2018, 19:19:41 »
As a caveat, though, I would say that you can "harm" a person without violence: denying them a job, not promoting them, or firing them solely on the basis of who they are, is harmful as far as I can see. But that isn't actually the point here.

Well, freedom of association would take us down a whole other tangent, which is one I would very much enjoy because my thoughts on freedom of association vs discrimination are not quite defined down to a nuanced level yet.

But with regards to freedom of speech, there is no strong argument to made that offending someone is harming them.

I tend to group these far-left types in the same boat as the "cultural appropriation" crew: worrying about things that actually don't matter all that much, and  at the same time by their antics actually undermining good and useful intentions to see that all people are treated fairly.

Agreed. They are poison.
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,758
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1045 on: March 13, 2018, 23:49:50 »

If we don't do a proper study we might install a pipeline that identifies as an oiler tanker, how embarrassing would that be.  I'd like to ensure I'm using the proper pronoun when addressing the pipeline too.

I would suggest a pipeline that identifies as a train, a very long train....

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 192,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,639
  • Freespeecher
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1046 on: March 14, 2018, 00:46:26 »
WRT the pronoun thing, there are two ways to take this:

1. Someone is trying to force us to play a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose". Since there is no objective criteria (and the person trying to force their views on you can change their position on a whim), you are trapped in a rigged game. I see no reason to be forced into a lose lose position just to satisfy the needs of some jackass to play power games.

2. The person is mentally ill, and needs help. Unfortunately, pandering to mental illness isn't offering help, and indeed could end up being more damaging in the long run.

Professor Peterson offers a clear way of dealing with the issue in a non confrontational manner (but if you read his book, he also points out that the biological division into two sexes is over a billion years old, long before there were multicellular animals, and many of the neurological responses in the human brain can be mapped on lobster brains, which developed over 250 million years ago, long before there were dinosaurs, so things like sex, gender and sexual roles have been hard wired into life and existence for unimaginable amounts of time.

These things are not "constructs" at all, but more like the geological plates the continents sit atop of. To deny reality is to descend into madness.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1047 on: March 14, 2018, 01:06:30 »
These things are not "constructs" at all, but more like the geological plates the continents sit atop of. To deny reality is to descend into madness.

Or the looney left, SJW, ❄ mindset.  I would include the looney right, as they're just as looney but they seem to agree on traditional pronouns/assignment.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services pai
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 266,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,198
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1048 on: March 14, 2018, 01:30:28 »
Or the looney left, SJW, ❄ mindset.  I would include the looney right, as they're just as looney but they seem to agree on traditional pronouns/assignment.

The looney right uses the 'royal' we and third person though. :rofl:
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Politics in 2018
« Reply #1049 on: March 14, 2018, 09:02:24 »
..But with regards to freedom of speech, there is no strong argument to made that offending someone is harming them...

IMHO this lies at the heart of the issue. If we all have an inalienable  right not to be offended, there is no meaningful possibility of free speech. Unless you are just talking about the weather (and even then...), you are at risk of offending somebody. Any meaningful statement of principles, beliefs, convictions or even of impressions can be offensive to somebody. Just look at what happens on this site!

The point of fine judgement lies in determining where "offending" ends, and "threatening" starts. For example:

"X community are responsible for their own misfortunes because they don't condemn Y actions by their members". That might be offensive to members of "X" community.

But "X community are a filthy cancer on our society and an immediate danger! We must eradicate them and drive them out our country now! All of them!!" is clearly threatening, and possibly bordering on criminal.

But those are black and white examples which are easy to judge. If we agree that "snowflakes" and "lefties" have no inherent right not to be offended by the expressions of people to the right of them on the spectrum, (and I do) then that must extend to everybody. So, just because you are offended by somebody saying something unpatriotic, or attacking the military, or marching in a leather thong in a Pride Parade, doesn't give you the right to shut them down.

A problem we can all see, (and I lay this largely on those at the more left end of things) is that the clear meaning of the words "violence" and "harm" have been debased almost to the point of meaninglessness, like the words  "racism", "hero" and "elites".
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...