|
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. |
All of this discussion would be well and good if the President had condemned the Nazis at the event. But the rise of whataboutism with these events by the highest levels of government is troubling. The standard that even a small number of violent left protesters makes both sides equal is both reductive and devoid of nuance.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On August 18 2017 23:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 16:03 Schmobutzen wrote:
Yeah, I don't know about Canadas anti - discrimination laws. Just look at the mess that is bill c-16... Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
C-16 is a poorly thought out badly written bit of legislation for sure, but it is coming from the right place and certainly has nothing on Trump's attempted pro discrimination laws. This has come up a few times now, and I'm really curious if people actually understand Bill C-16, or they are just seeing it through a filtered internet view. Canada has existing anti-discrimination laws. It is a very specific list, which covers things like race, sex, marital status, national origin, pardoned convictions, etc. Bill C-16 takes the existing list, and adds "gender identity or expression" to it. That's it. Now, if the argument is on the "gender identity or expression" is poor wording, okay, that's a discussion point.
You say that's it
But this Vancouver human rights lawyer/ CUPE member seems to think it means a bit more
https://player.vimeo.com/video/226046415
Starting at the 1 minute mark
Talking about ze 'or something else' (which is a lot of something else- I think it's over 50- (f)aer, pers, vis, xyr hir, etc)
"So why does it matter? It's important to use the appropriate pronouns for trans people for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it's the law. Recent changes to the BC Human Rights Code and the Federal Human Rights Act, make discrimination on the basis gender-identity and gender-expression forbidden. Trans people have always been protected on the basis of sex, but the explicit protection makes our obligation as co-workers and union members, even more clear."
...which is exactly what professors Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson and lawyer Jared Brown were saying in the Senate Committee hearings. The law looks innocuous, but once it gets implemented at the human rights level, it is so broad that we have this lawyer arguing that it's a matter of discrimination which pronoun you use.
|
On August 19 2017 00:26 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 00:03 TanGeng wrote:On August 18 2017 23:55 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 TanGeng wrote:On August 18 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 23:34 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:27 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. If there was a war and you had to pick a side would you fight for the nazis or for the leftists ? What are your thoughts on "Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society?" What do you think about Antifa only getting in trouble if they make a mistake in identifying Nazis to be violent towards? Is free speech and the right to peaceably assemble and outdated concept in modern society? Answer the question. This is not valid question. We are imposing a false dichotomy. Whichever side is the aggressor get punished and society as a while has responsibility to mediate the violence. The problem with this discussion is that the simplistic metric that the instigator is party to throw a punch first. That showing up in full body armor with rifles, bats and shields isn’t in itself some form of intimidation and therefore violence. The argument that pointing a rifle at someone isn’t violence unless the trigger is pulled. This is silly. US supreme court already has multiple ruling on threatening postures. It is a non-issue on deciding the line where violence starts. Well I guess that clears it up and it's a non-issue. Good to know. We will get the word out to all police during chaotic protests. Sarcastic remarks like this isn't doing yourself any favors. Legality of threatening behavior is well-establish. If it wasn't police would have an impossible time doing their job of peacekeeping. Continuing along this line of argument is simply trolling.
Just so I fully understand your argument, you are saying that because both sides were violent at the event, they are equally at fault. You oppose the views of Nazis, of course. But until the counter protesters can protest without a single instigation of violence, both sides must hold equal blame for the violence that happens at this protest.
|
If we're defending Nazi free speech, I don't want to hear shit from the same people if ISIS decide to make a protest. It's the same damn shit in my eyes.
|
On August 19 2017 00:26 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:18 brian wrote:
i find it fairly surprising that we are defending nazis free speech. i really thought it would be something people could get behind unilaterallly. luckily it seems even our republican leadership won't step out to speak up for the nazis.
part of me wonders how lost ones perspective is and how hard you want to either play devils advocate (lol almost literally) or just argue for the sake of arguing. and how much is a genuine belief that white supremacy is worth defending.
i mean when steve bannon steps out in front of you to condemn someone you haven't yet it really has to make you think right
fairly interesting post by artisreal, thanks for the perspective.
though i would quickly go on the record and say i'm against their right to march. Can you separate the ideas of defending the ideology of white supremacy and defending the free speech of US citizens not found guilty of crime? What's your argument for the repeal of the right of the people peaceably to assemble? The thing is that not commiting a crime and being on very thin ice morally due to ones worldview are wholly separate things. This is where abiding or not abiding to law becomes difficult to determine. Is it still free speech or is it propagation of white supremacism, which btw should be classified as an offence due to its innately violent nature towards those not idetified as white. When I go about peacefully and proclaim all whites should be restricted to South Carolina and shouldn't be able to vote, is that peaceful?
I thought you understood that morally objectionable political philosophies and their right to say them are wholly separate things. You want to change the voting requirement or do you want to threaten violence against people you deem too young or the wrong skin color to vote? You going to shoot whites if they don't remove themselves to South Carolina or are you going to petition your elected representatives to amend the constitution for racist purposes? You and I have very different ideas of what is innately violent by nature. Good luck persuading your neighbors to support your cause.
|
United States43203 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:On August 18 2017 21:43 Danglars wrote:
...
Antifa makes mistakes, Nazis don't. Well, I'll admit you can't get much clearer than that.
... Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America.
Getting away from the topic of rioting and free speech for a second, what about the constant violations of the civil rights of the black population of Ferguson that the investigation revealed? Where were you in defence of their rights?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:26 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:18 brian wrote:
i find it fairly surprising that we are defending nazis free speech. i really thought it would be something people could get behind unilaterallly. luckily it seems even our republican leadership won't step out to speak up for the nazis.
part of me wonders how lost ones perspective is and how hard you want to either play devils advocate (lol almost literally) or just argue for the sake of arguing. and how much is a genuine belief that white supremacy is worth defending.
i mean when steve bannon steps out in front of you to condemn someone you haven't yet it really has to make you think right
fairly interesting post by artisreal, thanks for the perspective.
though i would quickly go on the record and say i'm against their right to march. Can you separate the ideas of defending the ideology of white supremacy and defending the free speech of US citizens not found guilty of crime? What's your argument for the repeal of the right of the people peaceably to assemble? The thing is that not commiting a crime and being on very thin ice morally due to ones worldview are wholly separate things. This is where abiding or not abiding to law becomes difficult to determine. Is it still free speech or is it propagation of white supremacism, which btw should be classified as an offence due to its innately violent nature towards those not idetified as white. When I go about peacefully and proclaim all whites should be restricted to South Carolina and shouldn't be able to vote, is that peaceful?
This is unequivocally protected speech. Yes on peaceful because is only voicing of opinion.If you follow US jurisprudence, this is not a difficult decision to make. How hard is it to understand opinions however odious can be voiced.
|
It's hilarious to me that xDaunt lets TanGeng get away with these half-assed, hand wavey gestures towards Supreme Court cases when we all know that "I'm a lawyer, you're out of your depth" admonishments would be thrown at the first liberal to make a sloppy reference to inherently complicated common law precedents.
So here, allow me: pointing to "clear and present danger" doctrine in the vein of Brandenburg in no way solves the difficult problems inherent to enforcing restrictions on public displays of speech that cross the line into true threats.
|
On August 19 2017 00:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Wasn't it also noted that those rioters and looters were not form Ferguson and that they had the explicit intent on causing mayhem? Why would you call BLM vermin and not the fringe that joined the party to start shit?
What part of expressly referring to rioters and looters do you not understand? The part where that's "causing mayhem" or the part where it's singling out people based on their actions and not their group identity?
|
On August 19 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2017 00:04 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
Oh, it wasn't the word mistake. It was the entire thought embodied by your words. You will condemn antifa when they make a mistake, you won't condemn antifa if they initiate violence against nazis. Thank God there's a second amendment in this country so people can defend themselves from like you who excuse violence. Does it ever occur to you that if you actually make your point instead of showing all of this outrage and some snide remarks, conversations tend to go faster? You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations. No you weren't clear. Sorry if you thought you were. You stated the violence against Nazis were permissible and did not present a threat to society. You stated that your condemnation of Antifa was predicated on them making a mistake and not targeting Nazis. I think the protection of citizens against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. I agree with you. Protection against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. The problem with the nazis isn't that I disagree with their words and opinions. It's that they're nazis. I would never hold the position that I hold if the only problem with the nazis was that I disagreed with them politically. Obviously, you don't agree with me, because you're carving an exemption for Nazis that they don't deserve the ordinary protection of their persons against violence that other US citizens enjoy. What about their chosen ideology causes them to forfeit their constitutional rights and police protections? Since you don't accuse me of being unclear now, I won't re-quote the reason you omitted as to why I think your opinion is dangerous to society. You have portrayed my objection to the idea that nazism is deserving of free speech as being due to the fact that I disagree with them politically. That was incorrect. This is not why I don't think nazis deserve free speech. I agree with you however that people who disagree with me politically deserve free speech, so your objection to my position was unfounded. Ideologies don't have free speech, individuals have free speech. I'm having a dickens of a time learning on why grounds you permit violence against a US citizen professing nazism. I think they're deserving a protection against violence, and I'm going to need more than "It's that they're nazis," for your rationale. Since this is our fourth or fifth go-around, I'm leaning towards your unstated reason being that certain classes of citizens are just so sub-human that they're asking for it. So, for the last time, do you have a specific reason for your justification of violence against Nazis beyond "It's that they're nazis?"
"It's that they're nazis" isn't a closed sentence. It's supposed to evoke in your mind how nazis are bad. You know, this whole "killing a bunch of people not by accident, not colaterally, but by design". This whole "belief in the superiority of a race over the others and wish to improve humanity's gene pool by eliminating the untermensch". There's also this whole problem with being completely opposed to free speech, and absolutely uninterested in rational discourse which makes it impossible to reason with them. You can also make the argument that they are inherently violent cause nobody who is peaceful looks at fucking Hitler and thinks "What a role model, I should probably adhere to a movement whose name is associated to this guy". Those are the few that came to my mind directly, I'm sure you can find a few more if you put your mind to it.
|
On August 19 2017 00:35 farvacola wrote:
It's hilarious to me that xDaunt lets TanGeng get away with these half-assed, hand wavey gestures towards Supreme Court cases when we all know that "I'm a lawyer, you're out of your depth" admonishments would be thrown at the first liberal to make a sloppy reference to inherently complicated common law precedents.
So here, allow me: pointing to "clear and present danger" doctrine in the vein of Brandenburg in no way solves the difficult problems inherent to enforcing restrictions on public displays of speech that cross the line into true threats.
Frankly, I'm not familiar enough with the bounds of demonstration rights as they pertain to the content of speech to comment. I made that clear on Monday when asked whether ISIS could have gotten a permit.
|
On August 19 2017 00:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 21:57 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Assuming you disagree with that statement, can you make your disagreement with it a bit more explicit? Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Wasn't it also noted that those rioters and looters were not form Ferguson and that they had the explicit intent on causing mayhem? Why would you call BLM vermin and not the fringe that joined the party to start shit?
You are badly missing the point. I don't give a fuck who they are.
|
You're familiar enough with the law to know that "hey look, a Wild Supreme Court decision" practically never solves anything aside from establishing that the speaker has familiarity with a case note.
|
On August 19 2017 00:21 Doodsmack wrote:
The First Amendment does mean that Nazis shouldn't be prevented from speaking or subjected to violence. Where I disagree with the right is when they excuse Trump for using phrasing that leaves room for Nazis to praise him and believe he shares their beliefs, and when they call for cultural and immigration resistance to Muslims but not white nationalists/Nazis.
You mean you disagree with the content of their speech, not "disagree with the right." I also think Nazis shouldn't be prevented from speaking or subjected to violence just on the basis of their professed nazism.
|
On August 19 2017 00:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Wasn't it also noted that those rioters and looters were not form Ferguson and that they had the explicit intent on causing mayhem? Why would you call BLM vermin and not the fringe that joined the party to start shit? What part of expressly referring to rioters and looters do you not understand? The part where that's "causing mayhem" or the part where it's singling out people based on their actions and not their group identity?
The part where BLM is needed. They did what they did and stayed where they said they would protest. Why say BLM and the rioters and looters? Those are wholly separate entities there. The game can be played both ways, as you're still saying that segments of the white supremacy rally were there for violence and some were not. But do you understand how asinine that sentiment is?
|
On August 19 2017 00:29 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 23:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 16:03 Schmobutzen wrote:
Yeah, I don't know about Canadas anti - discrimination laws. Just look at the mess that is bill c-16... On August 18 2017 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
C-16 is a poorly thought out badly written bit of legislation for sure, but it is coming from the right place and certainly has nothing on Trump's attempted pro discrimination laws. This has come up a few times now, and I'm really curious if people actually understand Bill C-16, or they are just seeing it through a filtered internet view. Canada has existing anti-discrimination laws. It is a very specific list, which covers things like race, sex, marital status, national origin, pardoned convictions, etc. Bill C-16 takes the existing list, and adds "gender identity or expression" to it. That's it. Now, if the argument is on the "gender identity or expression" is poor wording, okay, that's a discussion point. You say that's it But this Vancouver human rights lawyer/ CUPE member seems to think it means a bit more https://player.vimeo.com/video/226046415Starting at the 1 minute mark Talking about ze 'or something else' (which is a lot of something else- I think it's over 50- (f)aer, pers, vis, xyr hir, etc) Show nested quote + "So why does it matter? It's important to use the appropriate pronouns for trans people for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it's the law. Recent changes to the BC Human Rights Code and the Federal Human Rights Act, make discrimination on the basis gender-identity and gender-expression forbidden. Trans people have always been protected on the basis of sex, but the explicit protection makes our obligation as co-workers and union members, even more clear." ...which is exactly what professors Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson and lawyer Jared Brown were saying in the Senate Committee hearings. The law looks innocuous, but once it gets implemented at the human rights level, it is so broad that we have this lawyer arguing that it's a matter of discrimination which pronoun you use.
And this is where the fears are overblown.
Yes, with no other context on the laws or the past precedents set, a lay person may assume this law will apply to using the wrong pronoun.
Except we've seen past precedent where calling people by racial slurs is, in itself, not enough to be charged under the anti-discrimination laws, and gender is not provided any higher protection that anything else on that list.
|
On August 19 2017 00:39 farvacola wrote:
You're familiar enough with the law to know that "hey look, a Wild Supreme Court decision" practically never solves anything aside from establishing that the speaker has familiarity with a case note.
So? You already know what the response would be if I pointed out that someone had no Idea what they were talking about (quite possibly in error) and then failed to give the correct explanation. Use your head.
|
On August 19 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 19 2017 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 22:11 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 18 2017 22:05 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Actually, I was disagreeing with a statement he made. Perhaps you also have an opinion on that? Violence against Nazis is a permissible offense (aka not threatening to societal health) in an existing free and open society (I really should say previously free and open society). Groups like Antifa are different, because they only rise to the level of making mistakes. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS DANGLARS. Are you serious? You're advocating for the well-being and protection of fucking nazis to assemble. Are they guilty of a crime beyond having a despicable ideology? I wasn't aware they surrender their rights of citizenship because you like the caps lock and have an opinion on the matter. Between denying civil rights and this newfound passion for destroying antiquities, we are getting our own little version of Taliban-lite in this country. And I'm highly amused by these arguments that police do not have an obligation to risk their lives or the appeals to the fact that the Nazis had guns. Whom, exactly, did the Nazis shoot? I haven't had enough coffee yet to tackle these mental gymnastics. Your passionate defence of civil rights would seem a whole lot more genuine if you showed up when people who weren't Nazis were getting their rights infringed upon. If you turn a blind eye when non Nazis are impacted then it gives the appearance that it was never actually about rights, it was just about Nazis. I never really have much of an opportunity to defend the leftist free speech rights because people on the right -- even the extreme right -- seem to be better at tolerating public discourse and don't try to start shit at lawful rallies. But when Ann Coulter shows up at Berkeley, that's a five-alarm fire for the various asshole factions of the left. Wasn't everybody protesting at Ferguson vermin? I remember you advocating they send in the national guard and didn't really care what happened to them if and when that happened. If BLM wants to demonstrate peaceably, I have no problem with that. I expressly referred to the rioters and looters as vermin. There is no constitutional protection to destroy the property of others. When that happens, regardless of who is doing it, I will always advocate sending in the authorities to clear the vermin out, whether it be BLM, Nazis, or the Girl Scouts of America. Wasn't it also noted that those rioters and looters were not form Ferguson and that they had the explicit intent on causing mayhem? Why would you call BLM vermin and not the fringe that joined the party to start shit? You are badly missing the point. I don't give a fuck who they are.
But you seem to care that antifa counter-protested nazis. I'm just trying to understand your point of views.
|
On August 19 2017 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:23 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2017 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2017 00:04 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:54 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 23:39 Danglars wrote:On August 18 2017 22:45 Nebuchad wrote:On August 18 2017 22:38 Danglars wrote:
Oh, it wasn't the word mistake. It was the entire thought embodied by your words. You will condemn antifa when they make a mistake, you won't condemn antifa if they initiate violence against nazis. Thank God there's a second amendment in this country so people can defend themselves from like you who excuse violence. Does it ever occur to you that if you actually make your point instead of showing all of this outrage and some snide remarks, conversations tend to go faster? You were perfectly clear at what you meant and I was perfectly clear about what I found objectionable. I never demanded you acknowledge my point, it's your right to note or not note our disagreement about the impact on civil society. Just don't try to skirt by it and pretend someone's zooming in on the word "mistake." That has a history of making conversations anything but conversations. No you weren't clear. Sorry if you thought you were. You stated the violence against Nazis were permissible and did not present a threat to society. You stated that your condemnation of Antifa was predicated on them making a mistake and not targeting Nazis. I think the protection of citizens against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. I agree with you. Protection against violence applies despite disagreeing with their words and opinions. The problem with the nazis isn't that I disagree with their words and opinions. It's that they're nazis. I would never hold the position that I hold if the only problem with the nazis was that I disagreed with them politically. Obviously, you don't agree with me, because you're carving an exemption for Nazis that they don't deserve the ordinary protection of their persons against violence that other US citizens enjoy. What about their chosen ideology causes them to forfeit their constitutional rights and police protections? Since you don't accuse me of being unclear now, I won't re-quote the reason you omitted as to why I think your opinion is dangerous to society. You have portrayed my objection to the idea that nazism is deserving of free speech as being due to the fact that I disagree with them politically. That was incorrect. This is not why I don't think nazis deserve free speech. I agree with you however that people who disagree with me politically deserve free speech, so your objection to my position was unfounded. Ideologies don't have free speech, individuals have free speech. I'm having a dickens of a time learning on why grounds you permit violence against a US citizen professing nazism. I think they're deserving a protection against violence, and I'm going to need more than "It's that they're nazis," for your rationale. Since this is our fourth or fifth go-around, I'm leaning towards your unstated reason being that certain classes of citizens are just so sub-human that they're asking for it. So, for the last time, do you have a specific reason for your justification of violence against Nazis beyond "It's that they're nazis?" "It's that they're nazis" isn't a closed sentence. It's supposed to evoke in your mind how nazis are bad. You know, this whole "killing a bunch of people not by accident, not colaterally, but by design". This whole "belief in the superiority of a race over the others and wish to improve humanity's gene pool by eliminating the untermensch". There's also this whole problem with being completely opposed to free speech, and absolutely uninterested in rational discourse which makes it impossible to reason with them. You can also make the argument that they are inherently violent cause nobody who is peaceful looks at fucking Hitler and thinks "What a role model, I should probably adhere to a movement whose name is associated to this guy". Those are the few that came to my mind directly, I'm sure you can find a few more if you put your mind to it.
So their beliefs cause them to forfeit their rights as citizens. Okay, that's all I wanted to learn at this point. Sorry for being unclear at the start.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 19 2017 00:35 farvacola wrote:
It's hilarious to me that xDaunt lets TanGeng get away with these half-assed, hand wavey gestures towards Supreme Court cases when we all know that "I'm a lawyer, you're out of your depth" admonishments would be thrown at the first liberal to make a sloppy reference to inherently complicated common law precedents.
So here, allow me: pointing to "clear and present danger" doctrine in the vein of Brandenburg in no way solves the difficult problems inherent to enforcing restrictions on public displays of speech that cross the line into true threats.
Brandenburg strengthened the protection of speech to imminent lawless action, only clarifying clear and present danger.
The decision gives justices of the peace agency to act when appropriate. It doesn't make the job of justices of the peace easy. If it was easy, we wouldn't need so many police or pay them at all well.
Again, in our civil society, the side that resorts to violence is losing the war. It is especially true of a minority opinion as is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
