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

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,123
... again, the source that this opinion piece (which again paints a worst case scenario) uses is no longer available ... what`s the problem with these opinion pieces that you guys keep bringing up that they all cannot get a link right (so that one can see for themselves that they are not talking out of their asses)?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/gender-identity-legalguidance.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Expression_Non-Discrimination_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Human_Rights_Law

The law is in place in NYC since 2002. Thx Obama! :bunny: :p

It is against discrimination. And as far as I can tell, it uses the same reasoning used when you call someone the N-word, the R-word etc in a professional context. Tell someone you're not renting to them because they are gay - that's discrimination. Tell someone you don't rent your apartments to "N-word" - you're discriminating and gonna get fined.
I think (hope!) very few people will disagree with that. (picture of Donald Trump with the rainbow flag goes here)
Tell someone you're not renting out to transsexuals (or whatever gender blabla) - and telling them that while refusing to address them in a way that does not hurt them - is that the same?

Now we come to the root of the problem here - is not using the pronoun a person wishes to be used the same as using the N-word. Maybe Mrs Level and Mrs prizrak would like to comment on this ... I'll put some money aside for the lawsuit ;)

Joking aside, I guess we boys here all know that calling a guy "a girl" or "gay" when they aren't is an insult. Deliberately (not accidental!) calling them the wrong thing in a professional context - is an insult too.
Is it the same as calling a black person the N-word? I don't think so. But what do I know? Maybe we should ask people who actually have that sort of problem in their lives? How can I decide for another group of people just what kind of language is insulting to them and used when they are discriminated against - when I have no clue what their life is like? As someone white, I'm not trying to tell black people what they are allowed to be offended by. Should I as a straight male tell gays that? Or trans-people? I don't think it's me who get's to decide what another person is offended by IF I discriminate against them.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,788
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
It is against discrimination. And as far as I can tell, it uses the same reasoning used when you call someone the N-word, the R-word etc in a professional context. Tell someone you're not renting to them because they are gay - that's discrimination. Tell someone you don't rent your apartments to "N-word" - you're discriminating and gonna get fined.
I think (hope!) very few people will disagree with that. (picture of Donald Trump with the rainbow flag goes here)
Tell someone you're not renting out to transsexuals (or whatever gender blabla) - and telling them that while refusing to address them in a way that does not hurt them - is that the same?
That's a whole different can of worms but I actually am not 100% convinced that it is OK for the government to tell me who I do business with, no matter the intent.

Now we come to the root of the problem here - is not using the pronoun a person wishes to be used the same as using the N-word. Maybe Mrs Level and Mrs prizrak would like to comment on this ... I'll put some money aside for the lawsuit ;)
See if I were bothered by you calling me Mrs Prizrak I would do a very simple thing, hit the ignore button and never have to worry about it again or just plain leave the forums.

Joking aside, I guess we boys here all know that calling a guy "a girl" or "gay" when they aren't is an insult. Deliberately (not accidental!) calling them the wrong thing in a professional context - is an insult too.
Is it the same as calling a black person the N-word? I don't think so. But what do I know? Maybe we should ask people who actually have that sort of problem in their lives? How can I decide for another group of people just what kind of language is insulting to them and used when they are discriminated against - when I have no clue what their life is like? As someone white, I'm not trying to tell black people what they are allowed to be offended by. Should I as a straight male tell gays that? Or trans-people? I don't think it's me who get's to decide what another person is offended by IF I discriminate against them.
You are conflating two completely different things, as majority of animals on this planet we have two genders (well there are actually 5 biological possibilities but the other 3 are abnormalities) and crucially we look we only have two genders. So if I were to call a guy "she" I know damn well what I'm doing, if I call a non-binary gender-fluid who looks like a guy a "he" it's because HE LOOKS LIKE A GUY. Also if I think I'm Napoleon and you refuse to call me that no one would claim I have the right to think I'm Napoleon and that right should be protected.

P.S. You don't have a right to not be insulted, but you have the right to choose who you associate with.
 

93Flareside

Döner Kebab enthusiast
DONOR
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
16,178
Location
42 miles outside of Chicago
Car(s)
‘18 VW Golf GTI, '87 Mercury Colony Park
Canadian College Teacher Trying to Reason with SJWs (AKA: tumblr is leaking)


I had a couple beers before watching this. I suggest you do as well.
 
Last edited:

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,709
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV

I had a couple beers before watching this. I suggest you do as well.
Very interesting video.

The indefinite professor is quite amazing. I don't care how "it" (let's call it this way for a moment) like to be called, I thought about it and what I really need is a way to categorize that figure in my mind. Either that's a XY, then He, or a XX, then She; if there is something problematic with the attribution, I am ok with calling "it" whatever is better to reflect the gender "it" would like to be its own. I have no problem with that. But there is no third way, or if there is, then my choice, in lack of anything better, is ok either way.

Or -I- (intended as in the whole community) will come up with something suited to this non-gender.

"it" doesn't get to choose its pronoun any more than any of us chooses his/her surname among friends; Other people give it to us, it's not for ourselves to choose. This is the same thing.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,788
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Here is the problem with the whole gender identity issue. There is no real definition of gender beyond the physical, if I were to dress as a woman and be a bottom I would still be a "he" because well I *am* a "he". I think the problem is that people conflate gender roles and gender expression with gender identity. Gender itself is physical there is no debate about it but because it's so inextricably linked to certain psychological traits people fall into the trap of thinking that there is some sort of an "identity" associated with it. In other words gender is physical, gender roles are societal but a woman doesn't stop being a woman if she is muscular, and a CEO of a corporation with a stay at home trophy husband.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310

The law school couldn't find a true believer in the law, so one of theirs is arguing devil's advocate.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310

TL;DW - A teaching assistant shows video of a Peterson debate about C-16 in class. This earns her a tribunal in front of the gender gestapo (a preview of exactly the kind of world Peterson warns about). She's accused of transphobia for not taking sides against him, for not instructing the class that he's wrong.

Her professor stumbles over himself, claiming Peterson has no "academic credibility" for what he says, while taking part in such an underhanded tactic to expel wrongthink from academia. He also accuses Peterson of fearmongering about C-16 while citing C-16 to intimidate the TA and accuse her of violating it.

Instead of addressing Peterson's arguments, they try to tie him to the alt-right, Gamergate, conservative media, Milo Yiannopoulos, Hitler, and whomever else they want to lump together in same deplorable basket. IMO there's a clear implicit threat that they'll do the same to her if she doesn't "wise up" fast.

FWIW the TA stands up for herself pretty damn well; she cries but doesn't crumble. She asks to see the complaint against her, and they refuse. Near the end she asks what consequences and judgement criteria she faces, and again they fail to answer, saying that so far this is an "informal" process which they would like to resolve before it goes any further. At that point I would have asked whether the complaint/accusation would cease to be secret once it became "formal."

Like Jian Ghomeshi, think about how fucked she would have been if she couldn't prove what happened in the meeting she secretly recorded.
 

93Flareside

Döner Kebab enthusiast
DONOR
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
16,178
Location
42 miles outside of Chicago
Car(s)
‘18 VW Golf GTI, '87 Mercury Colony Park
I couldn't even make it to the end of that video. It's disgusting what these young people think is going on.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,338
Interesting development to the previous college shitshow.

 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,338
Excuse the rant, but the thing that deeply troubles me about the transgender subject is that we seem to have forgotten a very valuable and important lesson that took... god knows how long to learn. A lesson that led to unprecedented peace and harmony.

I'm talking of course about the fact that you do not need to believe what others believe to be tolerant of their beliefs. And others don't need to believe what you believe to be tolerant of your beliefs.

But that very basic truth doesn't seem apply to the issue of transgenderism. At least as far as the current political hysteria surrounding it anyway. When it comes to that subject we've regressed back to 4th century thinking. If you so much as doubt, even for a moment, that each person has 2 genders (an inner and an outer), or that there are thousands of genders making a spectrum, or that there is no such thing as biological sex, then these people form the modern equivalent of a lynch mob, scream the modern equivalent of blasphemy, and demand the modern equivalent of your exile.

The fact that these people call themselves "progressives" makes it all the more embarassing. The title of "Regressive" has never been more fitting.

But when they're called out for this insanity, they descend to even deeper levels of intellectual bankruptcy by conflating your doubt in everyone having 2 genders, or whatever, to you questioning the very humanity of other people. This is Olympic level mental gymnastics if I've ever heard it. We would never entertain such an argument anywhere else.

Can you imagine if religious people started using that line? Going around claiming that atheists are denying their humanity, their religious identity, their lived experiences, their right to exist in this space, etc? We'd call bullshit on that in a heartbeat. But since we live in a world where integrity has been replaced with hypocrisy, we are more than happy to pretend such arguments have merit, so long as we feel sufficiently sympathetic for the person making them.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,788
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
TC;n3542337 said:
Excuse the rant, but the thing that deeply troubles me about the transgender subject is that we seem to have forgotten a very valuable and important lesson that took... god knows how long to learn. A lesson that led to unprecedented peace and harmony.

I'm talking of course about the fact that you do not need to believe what others believe to be tolerant of their beliefs. And others don't need to believe what you believe to be tolerant of your beliefs.

But that very basic truth doesn't seem apply to the issue of transgenderism. At least as far as the current political hysteria surrounding it anyway. When it comes to that subject we've regressed back to 4th century thinking. If you so much as doubt, even for a moment, that each person has 2 genders (an inner and an outer), or that there are thousands of genders making a spectrum, or that there is no such thing as biological sex, then these people form the modern equivalent of a lynch mob, scream the modern equivalent of blasphemy, and demand the modern equivalent of your exile.

The fact that these people call themselves "progressives" makes it all the more embarassing. The title of "Regressive" has never been more fitting.

But when they're called out for this insanity, they descend to even deeper levels of intellectual bankruptcy by conflating your doubt in everyone having 2 genders, or whatever, to you questioning the very humanity of other people. This is Olympic level mental gymnastics if I've ever heard it. We would never entertain such an argument anywhere else.

Can you imagine if religious people started using that line? Going around claiming that atheists are denying their humanity, their religious identity, their lived experiences, their right to exist in this space, etc? We'd call bullshit on that in a heartbeat. But since we live in a world where integrity has been replaced with hypocrisy, we are more than happy to pretend such arguments have merit, so long as we feel sufficiently sympathetic for the person making them.
It’s becauae you are fundamentally misunderstanding the entire idea behind the movement. The idea is that in order to have legitimacy one has to be a victim, if you are a minority you can claim such by virtue of your background (whether true or not is irrelevant), if you are a white middle class college student you have to invent another way. So if you take their victim hood away you take away their claim to legitimacy. Compound that with the idea that views are identity and you are basically denying that identity by saying “i don’t believe”
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,258
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
TC;n3542337 said:
Excuse the rant, but the thing that deeply troubles me about the transgender subject is that we seem to have forgotten a very valuable and important lesson that took... god knows how long to learn. A lesson that led to unprecedented peace and harmony.

I'm talking of course about the fact that you do not need to believe what others believe to be tolerant of their beliefs. And others don't need to believe what you believe to be tolerant of your beliefs.

But that very basic truth doesn't seem apply to the issue of transgenderism. At least as far as the current political hysteria surrounding it anyway. When it comes to that subject we've regressed back to 4th century thinking. If you so much as doubt, even for a moment, that each person has 2 genders (an inner and an outer), or that there are thousands of genders making a spectrum, or that there is no such thing as biological sex, then these people form the modern equivalent of a lynch mob, scream the modern equivalent of blasphemy, and demand the modern equivalent of your exile.
That's the whole point isn't it? You said it yourself.

Yet, the proposers of these "many genders", "respect my pronouns otherwise it's a hate crime" are doing exactly the contrary of what you're saying, imposing their beliefs on others and being intolerant when others say "that's not how I think". They're going as far as to pushing it to be a crime not to think and act like they do, a hate crime, the same as if you were advocating for the ethnic cleansing of some group.

That is the real nonsense right there.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
If you've ever wondered why it's crucially important for SJWs to go to so much trouble to persecute* and justify violence against** all wrongthinkers instead of allowing a debate on a level playing field, then this video is enlightening:



* as in "informal" and "off-the-record" inquisitions

** as in a) "It's OK to punch nazis" and b) "You're a nazi if we say so."
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,709
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
I've seen it one or two days ago. It's a awesome 30 minutes of how to conduct a discussion with someone who doens't want to have a discussion and the barrage of questions aimed only at destroying you.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
Stop me if you've heard this before (that old Toronto event was about Peterson if you don't remember).

Caught unprepared by the emergence of Gamergate Jordan Peterson, the press swiftly discovers that they cannot honestly and rigorously cover the controversy over ethics in journalism the wage gap without making feminism and the left look absolutely horrible. Therefore, the story must become about misogyny and threats and harrassment instead (and remain so forever).


2013 vs. now:


 
Last edited:
Top