Canadian College Teacher Trying to Reason with SJWs (AKA: tumblr is leaking)

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,307
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
As far as I understood, politicians were trying (or being pushed towards) to pass laws which would make it a punishable offense not to call someone by their chosen pronouns. I might be wrong on this, honestly haven't done enough research into this particular instance, because there's just so much inane bullshit flying around 'feminist' issues that it's background noise by now.
It's even got a name now, oppression inflation, where much as creating more and more currency lowers the value of it, there's so much outrage and oppression claims now that the single issues have been diluted in it's content and message.

 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,307
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
It is somehow reasonable in the sense that you'd get a fine if you stubbornly, or rather with inflammatory purposes, keep calling someone the wrong pronoun after they repeatedly asked you to call them something else. I.E, calling a transgender woman "he" over and over.
I am fine with that as long as we keep to the currently existing pronouns. I can call you whatever you like, he she or even they (although the latter is kind of awkward) but do not ask me to memorize your made up pronoun like Ze or Hir.
Whatever you identify as, I think he or she should fit you well enough.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507
I'm not fine with government punishing people for saying things that someone else is merely offended by.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,999
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
There you go again...As I have explained in the past, the problem with current immigration law is that it does not treat people equally. To give you a specific example, that is not even about people who want to move here permanently. If a German woman decides that she wants to go see Hamilton in NYC next month, all she has to do is buy a plane ticket, pass a brief passport check, enjoy the show, and fly back. If a Chinese woman, with the same economic background and same education status, even with the same career as the German woman, wants to go see Hamilton in NYC next month...she can't. She has to go apply for a visa several months in advance (in China it could be up to a year). Go to an interview and be asked to present all kinds of financial records and proof of employment (that the German woman didn't have to), then book a flight, go to passport control, where she will be asked a lot more questions, and if she successfully goes through all the hurdles, then she can go watch Hamilton.

Laws? Why is the German woman treated differently than the Chinese woman?

Just because you are an immigrant doesn't mean you understand immigration law and how it affects different people based on their race and nationality.
So? If I wanted to fly to Russia as in country that I'M FUCKING FROM, I would have to apply for a visa and get approved before they would let me in, if I were to fly to Germany I could flash my passport and be done with it. It has to do treaties between countries and what they agreed to. Hell in my old job I had to go to Canada for some business meetings and the fucking customs grilled me for 10 minutes about why I'm there and I can DRIVE there.

However that has jack shit to do with immigration that's visiting. Also news flash immigration laws don't have to be fair, no country is obliged to take you just because you want to move there. If you were for example a US citizen and were trying to become a Canadian one you would have to jump through massive hoops.

- - - Updated - - -

Discussions about Privilege are also painful too me as they are missing that exact point. There is privilege in general and I acknowledge that. .
You have privilege by the virtue of being born in a 1st world country when people talk about privilege they rarely understand wtf they are talking about. I'm a cis gender white male so I should be as privileged as they come but I'm also an immigrant so I'm now under privileged? Guess what there is such a thing as luck, some people are more lucky than others. Some are born to shitty alcoholic parents who are 1 bad check away from being homeless and others have last name Rothschild.

- - - Updated - - -

It is somehow reasonable in the sense that you'd get a fine if you stubbornly, or rather with inflammatory purposes, keep calling someone the wrong pronoun after they repeatedly asked you to call them something else. I.E, calling a transgender woman "he" over and over.
I am fine with that as long as we keep to the currently existing pronouns. I can call you whatever you like, he she or even they (although the latter is kind of awkward) but do not ask me to memorize your made up pronoun like Ze or Hir.
Whatever you identify as, I think he or she should fit you well enough.
No see, you (generic you not specific you) can't fine me for saying what I feel like saying that flies completely in the face of the idea of freedom of speech, you don't get to demand that people bend to your will. By the same token if you call me something I don't like I can't run to LEO and demand you be taken to court.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,961
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Guess what, countries are different, as are the people in them, as are the deals we make with them. That's sort of what Trump's desire to limit immigration from countries with major terrorist hubs stems from. And don't forget, I'm from a country like China, in your example - takes ages and tons of checks (including health) to legally enter the US. Meanwhile, some people are able to skip any and all checks and enter the country under the cover of darkness without anyone ever knowing. It seems that you're okay with that, which leads me to conclude that you're discriminating against immigrants such as myself based purely in geography.
So if you admit that countries are different, as are the people in them, as are the deals we make with them...how come you make blanket statements that "immigrants should obtain legal status" ? As I've tried to explain again and again, for some immigrants there is no path to legal status at all - because of the laws and deals the U.S. has made.

I don't support entering a country under the cover of darkness, as you say, but I'm advocating that we change immigration law in a way that creates a path for people to come here legally. They will still follow the rules we establish, but the rules won't unfairly punish them just because they were born in China as opposed to Germany.

If you don't agree, if you think that it is okay to have different rules for Chinese and German immigrants, then I ask you to stop making statements that ALL immigrants should get legal status, "just like I did," and admit that because they are not like you, the law doesn't give them that option.

So? If I wanted to fly to Russia as in country that I'M FUCKING FROM, I would have to apply for a visa and get approved before they would let me in, if I were to fly to Germany I could flash my passport and be done with it. It has to do treaties between countries and what they agreed to. Hell in my old job I had to go to Canada for some business meetings and the fucking customs grilled me for 10 minutes about why I'm there and I can DRIVE there.

However that has jack shit to do with immigration that's visiting. Also news flash immigration laws don't have to be fair, no country is obliged to take you just because you want to move there. If you were for example a US citizen and were trying to become a Canadian one you would have to jump through massive hoops.

You have privilege by the virtue of being born in a 1st world country when people talk about privilege they rarely understand wtf they are talking about. I'm a cis gender white male so I should be as privileged as they come but I'm also an immigrant so I'm now under privileged? Guess what there is such a thing as luck, some people are more lucky than others. Some are born to shitty alcoholic parents who are 1 bad check away from being homeless and others have last name Rothschild.
See above. It's exactly above privilege, and maybe even luck that your country and the U.S. happen to have an agreement that makes it relatively easy, or at least there is a straightforward process, for you to immigrate to the U.S. As I've told Lev before, I know it wasn't easy for his parents to immigrate here (as I'm sure it wasn't for you), but it would have been impossible to come here had they been born 50 years earlier (between 1924 and 1965 specifically, and I'm sure from 1965 to 1989 the Soviet Union wouldn't have been that eager to allow you to leave either).

Statements that immigrants should just get legal status ignore the intricate details of immigration law and how it subjugates certain peoples.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,425
Just because the law is inconvenient, that doesn't excuse breaking it. We have more than enough criminals with that attitude already, thanks.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507
So if you admit that countries are different, as are the people in them, as are the deals we make with them...how come you make blanket statements that "immigrants should obtain legal status" ? As I've tried to explain again and again, for some immigrants there is no path to legal status at all - because of the laws and deals the U.S. has made.

I don't support entering a country under the cover of darkness, as you say, but I'm advocating that we change immigration law in a way that creates a path for people to come here legally. They will still follow the rules we establish, but the rules won't unfairly punish them just because they were born in China as opposed to Germany.

If you don't agree, if you think that it is okay to have different rules for Chinese and German immigrants, then I ask you to stop making statements that ALL immigrants should get legal status, "just like I did," and admit that because they are not like you, the law doesn't give them that option.
Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean that you get to break it and walk away scot-free. I've told you before, I'm perfectly okay with revisiting immigration laws and looking at changing them. I really haven't heard anyone express that legal immigration is an issue, regardless of whether you're talking about what's current legal or what could be legal with a change in the law. What people do take issue with is people that knowingly break current laws and we have no clue who and what is coming into the country. Trump wasn't lying - rapists and murderers really have come in illegally, same as drugs and who knows what else. The most important part of any immigration policy, imho, is securing the border so we can control who crosses it; second important part is identifying who wants to enter via background checks and tracking them (not NSA style tracking but IDs, SSNs, the usual stuff that applies to you and me).
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,307
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
I'm not fine with government punishing people for saying things that someone else is merely offended by.
No see, you (generic you not specific you) can't fine me for saying what I feel like saying that flies completely in the face of the idea of freedom of speech, you don't get to demand that people bend to your will. By the same token if you call me something I don't like I can't run to LEO and demand you be taken to court.
So how exactly do you define harassment? you think there should be no laws preventing it?
There's no law saying I can't follow you with a steaming bag of shit and make sure everywhere you go smells like your worst nightmare, while I constantly recite bad poetry next to your ear as long as I'm not touching you. Is that also alright since all I'm doing is getting you "offended"?

As for the statements in bold, see defamation. You entirely CAN take someone to court for something they've said.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,999
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I'm advocating that we change immigration law in a way that creates a path for people to come here legally.
There already is.
it would have been impossible to come here had they been born 50 years earlier
You seem to think that there is some sort of a right to immigrate to a country, there is not. US is under no obligation to take you, me, Lev, some random dude from Guatemala or some other random dude from Uzbekistan for literally any reason. I see absolutely no problem with this.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,961
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean that you get to break it and walk away scot-free. I've told you before, I'm perfectly okay with revisiting immigration laws and looking at changing them. I really haven't heard anyone express that legal immigration is an issue, regardless of whether you're talking about what's current legal or what could be legal with a change in the law. What people do take issue with is people that knowingly break current laws and we have no clue who and what is coming into the country. Trump wasn't lying - rapists and murderers really have come in illegally, same as drugs and who knows what else. The most important part of any immigration policy, imho, is securing the border so we can control who crosses it; second important part is identifying who wants to enter via background checks and tracking them (not NSA style tracking but IDs, SSNs, the usual stuff that applies to you and me).
Yes, but when? George W. Bush called for immigration reform in 2007, it failed. Barack Obama promised it for 8 years, it failed. Politicians played games with it, John Boehner saying one month - The time has come to pass immigration reform, we have bipartisan agreement; to next month - the moment has passed, we can't do it now.

It's been almost 10 years. In the meantime, you get frustrated with people breaking the law. I get frustrated with the political inaction. And then there are actual people, who are told - be patient, keep waiting, it will happen soon...and it never does.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,999
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
So how exactly do you define harassment? you think there should be no laws preventing it?
There's no law saying I can't follow you with a steaming bag of shit and make sure everywhere you go smells like your worst nightmare, while I constantly recite bad poetry next to your ear as long as I'm not touching you. Is that also alright since all I'm doing is getting you "offended"?

As for the statements in bold, see defamation. You entirely CAN take someone to court for something they've said.
Harassment is investigated on case by case basis and you have to prove it in the first place. Defamation has a very strict legal definition and has to also be proven in *court*. Calling you a "she" when you prefer a "zir" is neither harassment nor defamation, same as calling you a jerky mcjerkface is not going to get me in any legal trouble.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but when? George W. Bush called for immigration reform in 2007, it failed. Barack Obama promised it for 8 years, it failed. Politicians played games with it, John Boehner saying one month - The time has come to pass immigration reform, we have bipartisan agreement; to next month - the moment has passed, we can't do it now.

It's been almost 10 years. In the meantime, you get frustrated with people breaking the law. I get frustrated with the political inaction. And then there are actual people, who are told - be patient, keep waiting, it will happen soon...and it never does.
So start a grass roots movement and lobby your representatives. I can't carry a gun in NYC because of local laws, I believe that law is unjust, are you OK with me carrying a gun then?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507
So how exactly do you define harassment? you think there should be no laws preventing it?
There's no law saying I can't follow you with a steaming bag of shit and make sure everywhere you go smells like your worst nightmare, while I constantly recite bad poetry next to your ear as long as I'm not touching you. Is that also alright since all I'm doing is getting you "offended"?
There's a big difference between stalking someone and saying something they don't like. There are also nuisance laws.


As for the statements in bold, see defamation. You entirely CAN take someone to court for something they've said.
That's civil court though, not government action. I have no problem with the idea of someone civilly suing another over non-PC language but it's a whole different matter when the government starts going around writing tickets over icky language.


Yes, but when? George W. Bush called for immigration reform in 2007, it failed. Barack Obama promised it for 8 years, it failed. Politicians played games with it, John Boehner saying one month - The time has come to pass immigration reform, we have bipartisan agreement; to next month - the moment has passed, we can't do it now.

It's been almost 10 years. In the meantime, you get frustrated with people breaking the law. I get frustrated with the political inaction. And then there are actual people, who are told - be patient, keep waiting, it will happen soon...and it never does.
Machine guns have been almost entirely outlawed for eighty years - are you okay with me going out and illegally obtaining one because it's been so long? Look, just because politicians are slow to revisit laws doesn't mean that we can start breaking those laws.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,307
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Harassment is investigated on case by case basis and you have to prove it in the first place. Defamation has a very strict legal definition and has to also be proven in *court*. Calling you a "she" when you prefer a "zir" is neither harassment nor defamation, same as calling you a jerky mcjerkface is not going to get me in any legal trouble.
I've already said these "custom" pronouns is going too far, but if someone has gender dysphoria and identifies as a gender they were not born as, what's the huge deal with calling them he or she even if they look like a she or he?

There's a big difference between stalking someone and saying something they don't like. There are also nuisance laws.
So calling someone repeatedly something which is not their gender is not a nuisance?

Look, the both of you, the only way this bothers you is if you actively enjoy trolling people. If you're having a conversation with a trans person and insist on calling them something they don't feel identified with (again limited to he and she), you're just being an asshole.

Again, what I said is if you're being a douchebag on purpose with the intention of causing someone mental anguish that's just bullying and that IS punishable by law already in many states, as it should be. The same goes for an angry feminist shouting stupid crap in your face for just being male. Freedom of speech is not infinite. If you don't believe me, go stand in an airport and shout you have a bomb.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,999
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Here are the laws as they stand in NY right now: http://nydefenselawyer.org/criminal-charges/harassment/

NY Criminal Law said:
First Degree Harassment ? NY Penalties

Harassment in the first degree is defined as:

Intentionally and repeatedly harassing another person by following them in a public place, or
Engaging in a course of conduct which places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury.

Ref: NY State Law ?240.25

Second Degree Aggravated Harassment

Aggravated harassment in the second degree is considered more serious than a straight harassment charge. This offense is defined as acting with the intent to annoy, threaten, or alarm another person and:

Communicating with them or causing someone to communicate with them in a way likely to cause annoyance or alarm, or
Shoving, kicking, hitting, etc. another person because of their race, color, national origin, or religion.

Ref: NY State Law ?240.30

First Degree Aggravated Harassment

There are two different ways to be convicted of this serious criminal offense. You could be charged with first degree aggravated harassment if:

You?re accused of committed second degree aggravated harassment and you?ve been convicted of a 1st degree aggravated harassment charge in the past 10 years, or if you:
Act with the intent to annoy, alarm, or threaten another person based on their race, color, national origin or religion and did more than $50 worth of damage to property used for religious purposes.
So it would already cover:
mpicco said:
Again, what I said is if you're being a douchebag on purpose with the intention of causing someone mental anguish that's just bullying and that IS punishable by law already in many states, as it should be. [/mpicco]
So what would be the point of extra laws?
what's the huge deal with calling them he or she even if they look like a she or he?
None at all, but it's my choice whether I want to respect their wishes or not, unless they are forced to associate with me there is no reason for them to do so.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,307
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Well I'm out of this thread, it has derailed harder than that Amtrak in Philadelphia.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,425
I've already said these "custom" pronouns is going too far, but if someone has gender dysphoria and identifies as a gender they were not born as, what's the huge deal with calling them he or she even if they look like a she or he?

So calling someone repeatedly something which is not their gender is not a nuisance?

Look, the both of you, the only way this bothers you is if you actively enjoy trolling people. If you're having a conversation with a trans person and insist on calling them something they don't feel identified with (again limited to he and she), you're just being an asshole.

Again, what I said is if you're being a douchebag on purpose with the intention of causing someone mental anguish that's just bullying and that IS punishable by law already in many states, as it should be.
I know you've checked out of this thread, but I think it's important to discuss this.

I'm a straight white cisgender male, the most ultra-mega-over-privileged class ever or something, and do you know how often I've been able to dictate what pronouns or titles I receive from others? How often I could get people fired or arrested for not complying with my demands? Never. Not once, ever.

When you're demanding special rights, special privileges, preferential treatment, you are no longer fighting for equal rights, you're fighting for supremacy. You are not an equal rights movement, you're a supremacy movement. Period.

And no matter how harmless such demands seem, it's important to fight this sort of fascism wherever it rears its ugly head. I'll be polite and courteous to your feelings, but not because I'm being threatened with force. I'll refuse solely on principle. No one has a right to demand special pronouns or titles, no one.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,030
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
No one has a right to demand special pronouns or titles, no one.
I demand that you all refer to me as Chief Maple Syrup Masterbatorial Overlord.

(This thread needed some levity).
 
Top