someone's jumpy. i got an edit in like 30 seconds after posting.



and yet when the argument is made that "gender identity" = "pronoun", then?

is "xer" not a gender identity? is "xim"?

you don't need to answer, it's rhetorical, because there is no answer, because we're in deep water with new terms that are defined differently in every single study (i read them all the time). and the law itself doesn't do anything to define it. it's overly broad. we need a mountain of legal definitions to differentiate between these issues before they present themselves, otherwise the law is unjust, or just plain wont get used because it's too confusing.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 23 2019 02:43pm

Right. So nobody is going to jail for misgendering and pronouns are not being policed. Not even mentioned in c16. There is no 'compelled speech' (Peterson's words) and therefore we agree that jbp is a huckster who got famous off the back of a misrepresentation of a bill that gave reactionaries a boner.

the number of people, high or low(zero), that a law has been used to jail people isn't an argument for it's legal correctness.

If i put a sign on my door that i was looking for workers that said "no Xers or Xims" i'd of course be in violation of the law, correct?

what is the functional difference between "gender identities" and the pronouns that those gender identities use to describe their gender identity? you can keep being childish with the "pronoun isn't used in the bill" nonsense, but it's semantics.

Haven't heard of any arrests yet but the sjw's in academia have already started weaponizing it against people

But https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/what-the-wilfried-laurier-professors-got-wrong-about-bill-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination

But Rambukkana goes further, telling Shepherd she’s also in violation of the legal regime created by C-16.

“These arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code ever since, and I know that you talked about C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity and gender expression,” he says.


That was for showing a video of peterson mind you

This post was edited by duffman316 on Apr 23 2019 02:51pm

Welcome to the law. It's all semantics. Words and their meanings are important. The number of people jailed under the law isn't important in this case. What is important are the semantics. Can the law be interpreted in the fashion Peterson suggests? The Canadian Bar Association says no. You say it can. Who am I supposed to trust? You and a psychiatrist with a proven record of poorly reasoned arguments (maps of meaning lol) and a blatant disregard for even bothering to do the minimum amount of research before having an opinion on something (Marxist theory)... Or the experts on questions of law in Canada? Or I could just read c16 and the laws that c16 pertains to and see that it's pretty clear even to a layperson such as myself.

You don't need to reply. I know you'll side with the lobster king no matter what. Your fragile ego won't let you admit you've been duped into thinking Peterson is anything more than a run-of-the-mill academic who courts reactionaries for the fame his lacklustre academic works fall far short of providing or justifying.

I mean ofc Zizek made him look like a moron. Zizek has 4 dozen books under his belt - many of which are dense philosophical works that have received widespread critical acclaim and Peterson has no serious academic works beyond the confused mess of maps of meaning, full of demonstrably false premises and generally ignored until he wrote what is essentially a cookie cutter self help tome embellished with unnecessary verbosity to make it seem more clever and injected with more than a little bootstrap conservatism.

Don't get me wrong here - I have my issues with Zizek and he has his blindspots, especially when it comes to trans people, but there's no denying that intellectually there is no comparison between him and JB. Especially when the question has anything to do with Socialism.

This post was edited by TransTankie on Apr 23 2019 03:21pm

So gender identity equals pronouns? So JP is right. And all the times u said pronouns aren't in there is wrong.

Racial hate crimes are no where near as semantic.

also:



i'm used to disproving silly old Ghot, but the entire BAR of Canada? wow it's a good day for me.


This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 23 2019 03:30pm

The worse thing that happens when you misgender someone is you get corrected and have to say sorry or whatever. Nobody is getting hurt.

Unless they're doing it intentionally to harass someone, but harassment is the issue there, not the words being used.

As for Zizek, his brain is unparalleled in the world of philosophy, he is pretty important but flirts with dangerous ideas. He is pretty much the opposite of George Soros in terms of philosophy and while I like Zizek a lot and really enjoy his work, I'm more in the camp of Karl Popper and George Soros and their political/scientific philosophy.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 23 2019 03:32pm

It was for showing a video of Peterson calling non-binary pronouns an example of radical left-wing totalitarianism. Pretty shitty way to present it to a classroom that might include NB people. Pretty shit way to present it in general tbh.
Not in contravention of c16 though. She's wrong on that. University faculty are not a court of law either so their interpretation or misinterpretation is irrelevant.

yeah on the whole Zizek vs JBP thing i really have no opinion. I only have tangential exposure to Zizek, and it would be hard to say Peterson is a great thinker, he's really overhyped by fanboys. i said that in the first post in all of this, and yet Viv is tossing out "you will never think anything bad about JBP", and a post after crying about me maligning their ideas to boot.



nor is the Human Rights Commission.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 23 2019 03:35pm

No.

Like a bag of rocks