So if someone brings up, say, high crime statistics from one group, you dismiss them, but then note low levels of crime from another.

Leftists. These arguments have turned into utter absurdity.

You haven't refuted any arguments here.

What are you referring to here?

I would say not being allowed to use everyday language and ask harmless questions might seem trivial on the surface but its the things they lead to , the poisonous attitudes and atmospheres they they help foster. It starts with recommended words you shouldn't use and leads to people being afraid to speak their minds for fear of losing their jobs for using these innocuous phrases even if they were trying to help people.


Your making out that being socially ostracized as being a trivial thing, how is it any more trivial than being annoyed at people asking where you are from? Iv got a foreign sounding name and have often been asked where I am really from, and I could not give less of a ****. Why should we have to alter our language just on the off chance we might upset someones feelings? . Especially when it leads to the cultures we see on campuses today.

I do believe that things like these lists of micro aggression's and safe spaces go hand in hand with university's banning certain speakers that they fear might upset or offend people. These things start off so innocently but its creating a breed of highly offended overly sensitive students. As perfectly demonstrated by this women ( who was trying to help btw) having to quit her job for using an innocuous phrase. And this is far from the only time this has happened. These seemingly innocuous practices are leading are leading to the suppression of free speech which is incredibly dangerous. Free speech is how we move forward as a society.

All good liberal ideas, equal rights for blacks/gays , equal rights for women, paid holidays (UK) ect. Those ideas were all offensive to the majority of society at some point . without freedom of speech it would have been alot more difficult and taken longer to get those rights.

If we want to beat the right/ the alt right we have to encourage people to face head on attitudes and opinions that they dont like and that they might end up facing in the real world or even might have to face off with them in politics at some point. Things like micro aggregations, safe space's and de platforming speakers has weakened , not strengthened the left.

And apologies I know I have gone off on a bit of a tangent but again I do believe that micro aggregations, safe spaces and de platforming speakers are all linked in some way. They have led to us being over sensitive , encouraging victim hood and shutting down opinions we dont like.
[/QUOTE]


The email was very innocuous and very short. They were complaining about a lack of diversity in the staff and wanting to actively have a hand in hiring staff members. I believe Clairmeont is a very liberal collage though I doubt any of their teachers are racists or anything close to it.

In fact collages in the US especially liberal ones have to be some of the least racist institutions on the planet, the over reaction of these students to this email again just shows me the poisonous attitudes that things like discouraging "micro aggression's" leads to


I dont believe they are reasonable suggestions but again its what it leads to, the attitude it fosters ect.


The Claremont case is a perfect example of what im talking about of how authoritarian some elements of the left has become and using a slight misphrase can cost you your job. I can only assume there were professors there who were too scared to speak up in case it jeopardized their jobs as well.

How was it flawed if there are academics who believe the wage gap is a myth? And why do you automatically assume it was a provocateur?

She was told to write a paper on a social issue and told that her premise which has been debated by academics was flawed and was told she couldnt use government sources, the government in question is one of the most liberal governments on earth btw. As far as I know most collages let you use government sources.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcYlgAi7zQ&t=192s

For news I like the BBC. Get political commentary from all over the political spectrum. The furthest left would be TYT politics who did a great job covering the Dakota access pipeline, the furthest right would probably be Paul Joseph Watson who I disagree with most things on but he is great at roasting SJWs.

Not all the people I listen to agree or like each other but it is good getting other perspectives.

Favorite commentator would be Secular talk who is also very left and probably the guy I agree with most on politics. Im not sure why my nationality is relevant here though.

The email was very innocuous and very short. They were complaining about a lack of diversity in the staff and wanting to actively have a hand in hiring staff members. I believe Clairmeont is a very liberal collage though I doubt any of their teachers are racists or anything close to it.

In fact collages in the US especially liberal ones have to be some of the least racist institutions on the planet, the over reaction of these students to this email again just shows me the poisonous attitudes that things like discouraging "micro aggression's" leads to




I dont believe they are reasonable suggestions but again its what it leads to, the attitude it fosters ect.




The Claremont case is a perfect example of what im talking about of how authoritarian some elements of the left has become and using a slight misphrase can cost you your job. I can only assume there were professors there who were too scared to speak up in case it jeopardized their jobs as well.

How was it flawed if there are academics who believe the wage gap is a myth? And why do you automatically assume it was a provocateur?

She was told to write a paper on a social issue and told that her premise which has been debated by academics was flawed and was told she couldnt use government sources, the government in question is one of the most liberal governments on earth btw. As far as I know most collages let you use government sources.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcYlgAi7zQ&t=192s[/QUOTE]

You know the slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason, right?

Tell that to a recovering drug addict who wants a beer.

Its only a fallacy when it suits your argument, or in your case non argument.

No, it's a fallacy when it's fallacious. For instance, in your drug addict/beer analogy, we can point to evidence and studies that show that drug addicts that partake in alcohol use have x% higher chance of reverting to their original drug of choice than those who dont. Therefore, the argument is not fallacious. Where is the evidence that requesting people in your employ refrain from using certain words or phrases will lead to sweeping laws requiring the same of the general public AND that those laws are subsequently harmful to the population as you are insinuating?

The answer is nowhere. That is why your slope is fallacious.

Meanwhile, the mainstream American right wants to make sure it's legal to fire someone for being gay or getting pregnant.

I just can't get worked up up over a few annoying college kids. They don't strike me as a threat at all and are just a distraction from the real injustices that are taking place. That's the whole point of the Rightwing Youtube Outrage Industrial Complex. It's smoke and mirrors to distract from all the ****ing over of minorities that they want to do. I ain't falling for it.

Harmful to the population? Does losing your job not count as harmful?


Anyways Bill C16 is probably the best example. It started out as using the correct pronouns in university's (something I have no problem with) but ended up resulting in government legislation that could impede the freedom of its citizens.

Its biggest critic is Jordan B Peterson a guy who studied totalitarian and fascist governments for decades. He took issue to a number of things amounst them was that according to the bill you could be criminally prosecuted for misgendering someone.


He argues that it infringes on free speech and has took part in 3 debates on the matter. On his third debate he couldn't find any opposition so he had to get someone to play devils advocate. In the first his opposition admitted that refusal to acknowledge someones preferred pronoun could constitute as gender based harassment. If found guilty and refuse to pay the fine you could have your assets frozen and your wages garnered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwA...=1586s&index=1

That was the first debate and at 28 minutes the opposition speaker admits that you could be charged with gender based harassment if you refuse to use the correct pronouns.

What was telling to me though was that in two of the debates he was accused of hate speech when all he had done was criticize a government bill which was trying to police the words that came out of peoples mouth. Im not a fan of hate speech laws in general , they are too open to interpretation and can be abused. To me that summed up why Bill C16 and hate speech laws are so dangerous and an infringement to freedom , merely criticizing them can result in you being accused of hate speech.

Hate speech laws are pretty common in Europe and in my country we had a similar but much smaller and less publisized debate when we introduced similar laws. Next month the guy who produced this video is due in court and could face jail time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...og-to-perform/

Now what ever your opinion of the video is I think we can all agree that he shouldnt be going to court let alone have to face possible jail time. Another similarity is that he will wont face a jury but will have a single judge decide his fate. Bill C 16 is similar but will use a tribunal but no jury.


That might seem like quite a trivial example but there is a trend worldwide
of stifling free speech and expression wether it is telling jokes, staff being afraid to speak out at university's, right wing speakers being no platformed at universitys , government bills to police the words that come out of your mouth , I am worried where it is going and where it will end.

How am I supposed to know? It was your example. You were talking about a university in which asking where someone is from is not allowed or something.

So here you slip it in again. We don't have a single example of somewhere where "everyday language" is banned. You know this isn't what anyone is talking about. Don't be so glib. The best example yet is a list of mere suggestions as to gender neutral nouns. Why the **** are we talking about authoritarianism and then suddenly we get all abstract as to the examples?


I'm not making out anything about social ostracising other than that it isn't an official policy anywhere that you've listed. I'm sorry if some students aren't friends with other students who say...something...but it's also not a policy anywhere that you've named.

Don't get me wrong, speech codes are an actual thing. You can't call a black worker a slave any more. You have to refer to them by name like the rest of your staff "on the off chance we might upset someone's feelings". What you haven't done is show that any of these speech codes are beyond the mundane or reasonable. We're all still waiting on the "countless examples".

I'm still lacking on details here. I know some of the students said it was about more than just an email. I know the person in question resigned. I know a bunch of clickbait articles were written. You still need to fill in the blanks for me to go anywhere with this.

How is providing guidelines as to preferred behaviours, speech codes etc. not meeting it head on? All it sounds like is a disagreement. When I'm hit with alt-right talking points, my preferred methodology is to disagree.


I'm still lacking details here. Referring to minorities as not fitting the Claremont mould seems bad on the face of it. If that fits a pattern of rejection or general racism on the campus then I need a cite that a uni in Missouri is one of the least racist places on the planet.


You're going all abstract on me again. What's unreasonable about preferring gender neutral nouns? There's no threat of punishment here. It's just a list of what's more inclusive, and they clearly are all more inclusive. Pick a specific one, how does saying recommending the term firefighter over fireman equate to some authoritarian and unreasonable overreach?


Didn't click the lol utoobz, but how about you tell me what the student's essay was titled? What was her premise here? What sources was she using? Then we can better assess the case. As stands, telling her to use sources that are actual research on the gender wage gap is fine by me.

I dismiss the fear-mongering about non-existent threats used to justify hating on a group of people and making life miserable for them. Rape is already illegal and carries a severe penalty. If someone is willing to take that risk and break that law, I don't think the extra hurdle of a bathroom ban will stop them, do you?

The ban would be a solution to an imaginary problem. Some places have public bathrooms that aren't segregated by gender at all, and guess what? No rape in those bathrooms. Probably because rapists typically aren't doing their raping in a room full of witnesses (not to mention one that smells like **** and where their victim may have just taken a dump herself).

And I suspect the people supporting these bans haven't even met transwomen. They're not frat bros playing dressup like what people picture when they think of transwomen using a ladies' room.

Okay, I clicked the utoobz.

I give it my typical response. Deny the pay gap, and then list all of the reasons that you think there's a pay gap.

That's what we call a flawed premise. You could write an essay on why women earn less, on average, than men, attribute it to a whole bunch of things, and I'm fine with it. But what you can't do is acknowledge that women earn less than men on average and then say there's no pay gap. That's ****ing dumb and I'm going to tell you to try again.

Alot of the critics of SJWS Iv listened to are minorities.

My worry is that SJWs and corporate democrats are weakening the left and I think they are somewhat responsible for Trumps and the alt rights rise. And these collage kids are the future of the liberal movement in the US and that should scare the **** out of you.

Lol at the idea of the left weakening in America. America hasn't had a ****ing left wing ever.

You could be charged under C16 for calling somebody by an incorrect name after they have legally changed it and informed you as much as well. If they changed their name from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali for religious reasons and you continue to call them Cassius then you are in violation of C16 AFTER the issue has been brought to your attention and you continue to refuse. Peterson attempts to make it seems as though accidentally using an incorrect pronoun accidentally will get you slapped with a fine which is ridiculous.

You can also be fined if you are the boss of Jerry and Jerry is a little bit too femme for you liking so you refer to him as she in his places of employment against his wishes.

Literally, the only thing that C16 does is to allow the expansion of protected classes to include transgendered people. Just because Peterson doesn't like transgendered people does not mean that this extension of protections was some huge ****ing overreach. They do not get any SPECIAL protections, but only the protections afforded to every single other protected class, which as I've demonstrated with the religious and sexual examples above, includes being entitled to be referred to as the correct name and gender.

This is not an overreach, it's a protection of a minority class. The same thing we have done for years now.

finally a smart person arrived to clarify and educate everyone

so master, theres currently over 70 gender identities on facebook. could you educate everyone on the number of pronouns the bill has approved. the number of identities the bill has approved. and the process in which you formally become one of the identities requiring a new pronoun

i think this would help all these morons understand the situation better

thanks in advance

It's not our fault if you don't want to treat people with basic human decency. I have absolutely no problem with such a requirement.

I googled a list of the Facebook gender options. A few similar ones:
Male to female trans woman
Male to female transgender woman
Male to female transsexual woman
Man
M2F

How do you imagine this actually translating to a work environment further than "Call me he, please"?

Actually, the list seems to narrow to: he, her, they, or their actual name.

Can't imagine how offices will function under the new regime.

We have just about zero control over a virtually unlimited amount of human identities. So, no exact amount is relevant to understanding humans better. I estimate that when you pay attention to a person and listen, you can find out how they like to be referred to as.

It's just a deal with it type of situation.

you clearly have a strong understanding of the legal system. thanks for taking the time to share this. very insightful

Its not that hard bro, its covered under section 14.

Harassment Harcèlement
14 (1) It is a discriminatory practice,
(a) in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation
customarily available to the general
public,
(b) in the provision of commercial premises or residential
accommodation, or
(c) in matters related to employment,
to harass an individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

"accommodation customarily available to the general public" would include calling someone by their preferred pronoun, as you would do with a man or woman by calling him he or her she. By not providing the same accommodation to a protected class (which would include gender identity under C16) simply because of their protected class, would be a violation of the Harassment policy.

thank you for copy and pasting this

now as someone who came here to educate everyone, could you please answer the 3 questions i asked?

very straightforward questions. maybe since youre knowledgeable on the topic, you could even answer them in your own words

Still wondering which pronouns are going to confuse the hell out of you at the office.

What part of "70 gender identities on Facebook" do you not understand?