|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 12 2017 05:08 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK. The fight in Korea itself would be over before they could even mobilize anything other than missile launches and some sorties. They really just don't want a US vassal on their border and a wasteland Korean peninsula also handles that problem. As an American I've heard approximately 0 about the Korean peninsula being inhabited since the neolithic period, pottery since 8000 BC, and enjoyed hundreds of years of relatively peaceful rule (my detailed knowledge is limited). That's an ancient culture with bottled farts older than our country, it would be a shame for us to wipe it off the earth because we think it's insane for someone to build a weapon comparable to the one we've had pointed at them for the last 50+ years. I don't understand how people think other countries should just accept that only some countries are allowed to the security of MAD. Especially a country grouped with other countries where the US just went in and removed their leadership at gunpoint. A nuke and China is all NK has standing between it and a foreign country coming in and replacing leadership, getting a nuke and an ICBM to carry it seems like the only rational path for NK. You are vastly underestimating how long that war would last. While not able to win in any form or fashion it would likely be a slow invasion because they have a decent military. Even Iraq took a month to reach the capital and NK is FAR more advanced.
We wouldn't be attacking like we did in Iraq. You remember Trump's advocating for indiscriminate bombing? There is a possibility NK nukes SK and then that greenlights Trump to end it quickly with a nuclear response.
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support).
China doesn't have a say in whether NK uses nukes. There's a reason that when the US promises nuclear protection to NATO allies and bases nukes in their territory it does so in very fortified US bases with the US always holding the keys. It's to avoid exactly this kind of situation.
|
On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41
It is literally just adding "gender identity or expression" directly after "sexual orientation", in 3 or 4 sections of the human rights act.
|
On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41
i dont see anything about failure to use preferred pronouns in there
|
On August 12 2017 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:08 Adreme wrote:On August 12 2017 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK. The fight in Korea itself would be over before they could even mobilize anything other than missile launches and some sorties. They really just don't want a US vassal on their border and a wasteland Korean peninsula also handles that problem. As an American I've heard approximately 0 about the Korean peninsula being inhabited since the neolithic period, pottery since 8000 BC, and enjoyed hundreds of years of relatively peaceful rule (my detailed knowledge is limited). That's an ancient culture with bottled farts older than our country, it would be a shame for us to wipe it off the earth because we think it's insane for someone to build a weapon comparable to the one we've had pointed at them for the last 50+ years. I don't understand how people think other countries should just accept that only some countries are allowed to the security of MAD. Especially a country grouped with other countries where the US just went in and removed their leadership at gunpoint. A nuke and China is all NK has standing between it and a foreign country coming in and replacing leadership, getting a nuke and an ICBM to carry it seems like the only rational path for NK. You are vastly underestimating how long that war would last. While not able to win in any form or fashion it would likely be a slow invasion because they have a decent military. Even Iraq took a month to reach the capital and NK is FAR more advanced. We wouldn't be attacking like we did in Iraq. You remember Trump's advocating for indiscriminate bombing? There is a possibility NK nukes SK and then that greenlights Trump to end it quickly with a nuclear response.
Stupidest thing we could do is use nukes, even if NK attempts to. We can quickly neuter them without them and our nukes will do a lot more international damage.
|
|
|
On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41
Which is why the bill's authors were hoping it wouldn't provoke notice. The terms of the offense leave wide open criminal penalties for misgendering someone. You can look to the Ontario human rights commission to see just how far it can go. The only question is if people are naive enough to trust the authors that it won't be used as such, or actually maliciously glad hate speech people that don't afford basic respect in pronouns will be open to criminal penalties.
OHRC. See discrimination laid out in all its glory.
Argument laid out before the Senate hearing prior to passage
|
On August 12 2017 05:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support). China doesn't have a say in whether NK uses nukes. There's a reason that when the US promises nuclear protection to NATO allies and bases nukes in their territory it does so in very fortified US bases with the US always holding the keys. It's to avoid exactly this kind of situation.
If NK attempts to use a nuke, China will for sure stay out of the ensuing chaos. China won't use any nukes if they get involved. That's where I was getting to. And you can be sure China is telling NK to not even consider using a nuclear missile for anything. And if they do, and China tries to get involved, I'm sure it'll be World vs China/Russia (though I don't think Russia is crazy enough to get involved in this matter, they stand to make more not jumping in). Mattis and Tillerson are saying that diplomatic progress is being made, so we'll see what comes of that.
|
On August 12 2017 05:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41 i dont see anything about failure to use preferred pronouns in there
Weird right? It's almost like charlatans are preying on the low information ignorance of the reactionary right or something. That patreon welfare is too sweet, gotta get in on that action.
|
On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41
I don't see anything about compelled speech at all. Or anything that would criminalize misgendering someone. I am really confused how this bill got 24 speakers to line up against it.
On August 12 2017 05:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:22 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41 i dont see anything about failure to use preferred pronouns in there Weird right? It's almost like charlatans are preying on the low information ignorance of the reactionary right or something. That patreon welfare is too sweet, gotta get in on that action.
Oh, he has a patreon. It all becomes clear now. All becomes clear.
|
On August 12 2017 05:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41 I don't see anything about compelled speech at all. Or anything that would criminalize misgendering someone. I am really confused how this bill got 24 speakers to line up against it. Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 05:22 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41 i dont see anything about failure to use preferred pronouns in there Weird right? It's almost like charlatans are preying on the low information ignorance of the reactionary right or something. That patreon welfare is too sweet, gotta get in on that action. Oh, he has a patreon. It all becomes clear now. All becomes clear.
Peterson? He gets $60,000 a month from it! The man is the same old evangelical right wing nut. But people think because he's a professor it gives his tired old ideas some sort of credibility.
|
Jonathan Pollack, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution specializing in Asia-Pacific security issues, says the U.S. day-to-day military capabilities in the western Pacific are "very imposing, very impressive."
Pollack says they are intended "to deter the North from any kind of potential actions. But if the North were to act, the U.S ... would have to deploy far more to the peninsula and the region as quickly as possible."
And he points to another sign that the U.S. is not moving toward war with North Korea: There have been no efforts to evacuate at least 150,000 U.S. citizens living in South Korea.
"That would be the clearest indication that we were headed toward war," Pollack says. "And I don't think we are."
Source
|
On August 12 2017 05:25 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2017 05:08 Adreme wrote:On August 12 2017 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Why wouldn't Chinese nukes be an extremely significant factor? You should weight the factors by probability and seriousness. To give a simple example, a 10% chance of losing $100 is a bigger problem than a 90% chance of losing $1.
The last time we invaded North Korea China and the United States went to war over it. Since then China has signed, and re-signed, and re-re-signed, a mutual defence treaty that binds them to go to war if NK is attacked again. The idea that if the US attacks NK China will get dragged in isn't crazy talk. It's what happened the last time and it's what they say will happen the next time. I don't think it would make sense for China to go to war for NK. The fight in Korea itself would be over before they could even mobilize anything other than missile launches and some sorties. They really just don't want a US vassal on their border and a wasteland Korean peninsula also handles that problem. As an American I've heard approximately 0 about the Korean peninsula being inhabited since the neolithic period, pottery since 8000 BC, and enjoyed hundreds of years of relatively peaceful rule (my detailed knowledge is limited). That's an ancient culture with bottled farts older than our country, it would be a shame for us to wipe it off the earth because we think it's insane for someone to build a weapon comparable to the one we've had pointed at them for the last 50+ years. I don't understand how people think other countries should just accept that only some countries are allowed to the security of MAD. Especially a country grouped with other countries where the US just went in and removed their leadership at gunpoint. A nuke and China is all NK has standing between it and a foreign country coming in and replacing leadership, getting a nuke and an ICBM to carry it seems like the only rational path for NK. You are vastly underestimating how long that war would last. While not able to win in any form or fashion it would likely be a slow invasion because they have a decent military. Even Iraq took a month to reach the capital and NK is FAR more advanced. We wouldn't be attacking like we did in Iraq. You remember Trump's advocating for indiscriminate bombing? There is a possibility NK nukes SK and then that greenlights Trump to end it quickly with a nuclear response. Stupidest thing we could do is use nukes, even if NK attempts to. We can quickly neuter them without them and our nukes will do a lot more international damage.
Good thing we have the opposite of the stupidest president...
|
On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support).
You would think that, because we are rational intelligent people, but I would not be surprised at all if 20 years from now we find out just how close we all came to nuclear winter. Just like happened with the Cuba Crisis.
|
On August 12 2017 05:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:30 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41 I don't see anything about compelled speech at all. Or anything that would criminalize misgendering someone. I am really confused how this bill got 24 speakers to line up against it. On August 12 2017 05:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 05:22 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2017 05:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On August 12 2017 04:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 12 2017 04:11 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, incidentally, the entire fiasco around Peterson guy started precisely because of his public opposition to bill C16, which in Canada roughly makes it "a hate crime to misgender someone or fail to use the correct gender pronouns".
This seems innocuous or random at first glance, but in clear effect, it introduces into law two serious problems:
1) compelled speech, as in, there are things you must say in certain situations (as opposed to what you are not allowed to say). I seriously believe this is the essential foundation of fascism. I'm not even overdramatic. It's a bad, bad thing.
2) the notion that gender identity is a fluid category exclusively up to the choice of the individual coupled with social construction. This is not only extremely disputed, it is also, apparently, factually and scientifically wrong.
Those, when extrapolated to their probable long-term outcomes, are quite serious problems. And hence the fiasco. In Canada, your constitutional rights are not sacrosanct, meaning freedom of speech, for example, is not untouchable. Bill C16 also does not make calling someone the wrong gender a crime. It adds gender identity to an existing list of discrimination laws, which are actually very rarely used because of the difficulty in proving prejudiced motivations. If they are anything like US discrimination laws, there needs to be sustained efforts to discriminate and some pretty compelling evidence. Simply mis-gendering someone would not be a crime. Were there other flaws with the bill that couldn’t’ be corrected? The bill is less than a page long. All it does is add gender identity to all the usual protected classes. It's much ado about nothing. http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent#enH41 i dont see anything about failure to use preferred pronouns in there Weird right? It's almost like charlatans are preying on the low information ignorance of the reactionary right or something. That patreon welfare is too sweet, gotta get in on that action. Oh, he has a patreon. It all becomes clear now. All becomes clear. Peterson? He gets $60,000 a month from it! The man is the same old evangelical right wing nut. But people think because he's a professor it gives his tired old ideas some sort of credibility.
I feel like this critical aspect of his work was left out of the discussion yesterday. Its almost like that aspect of his work isn’t front and center, that he is crowd funded to the tune of 500K a year pre taxes(I took off 1/3 because crowd because he won’t get all that money monthly). That pleasing the crowd that pays him might have an influence on what he says.
|
On August 12 2017 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support). You would think that, because we are rational intelligent people, but I would not be surprised at all if 20 years from now we find out just how close we all came to nuclear winter. Just like happened with the Cuba Crisis.
We don't need to wait that long. Dude's been in office for 7 months and we're already toeing that line.
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 12 2017 05:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support). You would think that, because we are rational intelligent people, but I would not be surprised at all if 20 years from now we find out just how close we all came to nuclear winter. Just like happened with the Cuba Crisis. We don't need to wait that long. Dude's been in office for 7 months and we're already toeing that line.
With the Cuban Missile Crisis we found out a few decades after the events that the intelligence was wrong and that an act that the US was about to do in the belief that it wouldn't trigger nuclear would definitely have triggered nuclear war. That's the point of the reference. At the time nobody knew how close to the edge the world got.
|
On August 12 2017 05:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support). You would think that, because we are rational intelligent people, but I would not be surprised at all if 20 years from now we find out just how close we all came to nuclear winter. Just like happened with the Cuba Crisis. We don't need to wait that long. Dude's been in office for 7 months and we're already toeing that line.
I'm pretty sure I interpreted that the way you meant it, but I found it interesting to learn that "tow the line" isn't the expression, although it makes more sense given the idiom's actual meaning.
Not sure anyone else had that moment.
|
Thinking about it today, so far I have to say that Trump hasn't yet been as bad as Bush. Not sure why people are talking about "I miss Bush now" forgetting the whole 2008 crisis, an unjustified war with Iraq, Katrina, etc. Trump could wind up being worse, no doubt, but so far I'm not seeing it.
|
On August 12 2017 05:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 12 2017 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2017 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You all are giving trump too much credit and weight behind making these decisions. There will be no nukes. Period. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to die in a blaze of glory.
If we strike first, China will do what it can without engaging the US in all out war (NO NUKES WILL BE USED). If NK strikes first, China will sup son and stay out of it and monitor closely (while still providing materiel support). You would think that, because we are rational intelligent people, but I would not be surprised at all if 20 years from now we find out just how close we all came to nuclear winter. Just like happened with the Cuba Crisis. We don't need to wait that long. Dude's been in office for 7 months and we're already toeing that line. With the Cuban Missile Crisis we found out a few decades after the events that the intelligence was wrong and that an act that the US was about to do in the belief that it wouldn't trigger nuclear would definitely have triggered nuclear war. That's the point of the reference. At the time nobody knew how close to the edge the world got.
I understand the reference. But I'm saying now, with all of this media in our face and how much we've been leaking, we'd know for sure just how close we are to nuclear war. That's what I mean by we don't need to wait decades. It'll be months if no conflict occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
