“If you don’t want to pay for a baby, then don’t make one.”
That’s what I heard for years as a woman coming of age in this society, and I tend to agree… as long it goes both fuckin’ ways.
Kids still exist whether the relationship that created them works out or not; anyone who doesn’t want to financially support their own offspring should take explicit measures to make sure they don’t produce any.
“Mama say, mama-sa, ma-mah-ku-sah.”
LOOL!!! Are you sure about that? Are you sure that he didn’t quote the Ontario Human Rights Commission (and remember, the human rights commissions are the ones who get to interpret the law, as Pardy pointed out in that article) specifically saying that not using the pronouns would qualify as discrimination? Are you sure that Pardy didn’t mention the fact that Senators flatly rejected an amendment to the bill that would have qualified that the bill wasn’t going to compel any sort of speech? Oh wait …
And if that omission of yours wasn’t bad enough (you obviously didn’t read the article), you brought up Brenda Cossman. Cossman outright admits that pronoun misuse can be punished according to the statements of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which Pardy quoted in the article I noted. Here is a link of Cossman’s article where she responds to Peterson (she also debated him on it, the debate is on YouTube).
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
Cossman specifically says;
In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
So her excuse is that “Well, you’ll get punished but won’t go to jail!” As if that’s at all OK with freedom. But it gets worse, because Cossman omitted something. She points out that if you get a financial penalty for not using pronouns, and refuse to pay it, the government will seize your assets. But what happens if you don’t follow through with the non-financial remedies? Then, you can go to jail. But let’s say I was wrong about this point, and that you wouldn’t go to jail. Sorry, that’s still compelled speech. Just because I’m not being thrown in a cell doesn’t mean that you’re enforcing into a bureaucracy what I can and cannot say without recourse. So, Cossman does admit Peterson’s point. This is compelled speech.
Well, I at least commend you for trying to explain it.
I’m sure I can’t, but here goes. If I read between the lines, it looks like his point is that promiscuous sex could lead to unintended consequences. In which case: that’s really all he needed to say, and he could’ve/should’ve stopped there. When he compares state-enforced consequences with slavery, and dresses up his words with the “tyranny of wife/child,” though, he just sounds like an asshole. Hence, my comment that “it might actually make him look worse.”
Before I explain it, I just wanted to point something out. First, you claimed that the fuller context makes him look even worse! But now you straightly admit you can’t actually explain what he’s saying. So here it is. But before I explain it, I’ll just note you could have just clicked on the Tweet I posted and scrolled down, a number of people outlined the point of Peterson’s comments. Peterson was pointing out that sexual irresponsibility (such as treating women as disposable objects, as one example) can lead to recourse from the state that ends up punishing everyone for their sexual irresponsibility, like alimony, child support, etc. So here’s the message; don’t be sexually irresponsible. That includes casual sex. Then, you wont have to fall into the pain in the neck that state recourse reserved fpr those who are sexually irresponsible. No need to read inbetween the lines.
Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.
The thing is – he is wrong.
If only you could do that with lottery numbers…
Can you tell me where, in the rest of the video, where she provides the full context of Peterson’s point?
Remember that this law was passed in 2016. It’s 2018 now and there’s no wave of people being punished for saying the wrong pronoun.
And that’s a good thing. This is probably mostly due to the fact that ordinary people aren’t as sensitive as the leftist bureacrats trying to govern our speech, so no one bothers to actually report this to the police. But no legal scholars I’ve seen actually claim that there is no recourse for pronoun ‘misuse’.
Anyways, as has been established earlier, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has said that;
refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.
You quoted this but, for some reason, didn’t get the implications. Not using certain pronouns will “likely” be discrimination, and thus lead to bureaucratic recourse for the ‘offender’. “Likely” means “probably will” rather than “always” – full consistent with what I’ve been saying this entire time, that Bill C-16 can cause legal recourse for not complying with compelled speech. And it’s as simple as that. And in the end, you have to admit that there have been convictions for this;
There was a case where an employer was ruled against for continuing to pointedly use “he” to refer to a trans woman after being repeatedly told it was offensive.
And that’s the debate. Someone has been convicted for not using specific pronouns. Absolutely unacceptable. Free speech lost on that day.
@anon75430791 pulls a strange move in his most recent response to me. After outright showing him Cossman admits that Bill C-16 can cause legal recourse for not using pronouns, he points to a different aspect of Cossman’s disagreement. So, ActuallyARegular was wrong about compelled speech, but he thinks he can come back by pointing out something else Peterson was wrong about! And yet, he remains wrong because as I pointed out earlier, you can still go to jail from Bill C-16 by not complying with non-financial recourse. And there is another way you can go to jail that I forgot how to explain, so I’ll just post Bruce Pardy explaining it in this speech and lecture with Peterson and Pardy at Queen’s University.
Regular, just admit it. Cossman, Pardy, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission all agree on legal punishment for not using pronouns. This is Canada in 2018.
Listen kid. You’re dead wrong on this, and I would advise you (again) to dig up. Again, covered upthread:
Aside from the music, everything that’s been said in this thread has been posted and stated repeatedly.
There’s no ‘winning’ here; nobody is going to ‘change their minds,’ and no one will be convinced of anything that they don’t already believe.
Well, in all fairness, you implied that it would make him look better.
(I think the post in question may have been eaten.)
All he had to say was that people should (or, if you like, will have to) take responsibility for their actions, including any unintended consequences of having sex. But anything beyond this makes him look obtuse, at best.
Whether I got it or not, I was certain I’d be told that I failed to successfully explain it.
(And yet, I bothered to do it anyway. Touché)
Obligatory as fuck:
One of several reasons that I’ve stayed off Facebook all year, so far.
And speaking of FB, the BBS commentariat is infinitely better than that at the BB FB page. There’s some toxic feculae, if you find yourself short.
have you noticed that there are some members here who post a lot of text and links to text and video requiring a great deal of reading and parsing of spoken words who, themselves, either refuse to read through anyone else’s texts or have a very odd approach to reading comprehension? personally, i refuse to engage folks like that and i had promised myself i wouldn’t even throw shade but after watching you going back and forth through this thread trying to get agreement on some basic issues of fact i couldn’t resist. it’s almost as if the conversationalist opposing you is deliberately failing the turing test.
Even before all the privacy violations/fake news fracas, I hadn’t been on that site; my account ‘broke’ somehow last summer, when I uploaded an image where the data had been corrupted… and I’ve never been able to access it again since.
Considering that the only reason I even had an account in the first place was to appease my nagging sorority sisters and I hardly ever posted anything there, it was no loss at all. You are absolutely correct that it mainly acts as a conduit for energy leeches, hatemongers and antisocial behavior in general.
(I’m also happy to say I never do any social media of any sort on any of my mobile devices, so my phone, etc haven’t been compromised.)
I just want to point out that all the trans people I know recognize that they may occasionally be accidentally misgendered, and consequently, they tend to stress that if you make a pronoun mistake they simply want you to correct yourself and move on. People have behaviors around learning and using gender pronouns that they pick up at a young age, and so this is reasonable, as society adjusts. Those who look at the Canadian law and see “compelled speech” are either failing to recognize that their reluctance to put in the effort is a form of bigotry (there may yet be hope for such types, IMO), or they’re arguing in bad faith as a means of trying to stop this process of adjustment (Peterson).
Guess which one will get you thrown in jail faster: refusing to refer to someone by their preferred pronouns or going into court and calling a judge an asshole.
In other words, you can be jailed for not following proscribed manners of speaking, but not what’s covered under Bill C-16. Could someone lose their job? Sure. But then again, most workplaces have rules about what is and isn’t inappropriate language.
FTR, Canada does have “language police” : they’re the ones monitoring whether the government is properly using both official languages. The average Canadian doesn’t need to worry about them at all.
As I noted above:
How about we just refer to a trans person with the pronoun he or she or they request as a recognition of legitimate identity? For most of us this is fairly uncontroversial and costs us nothing. For a bigot doing the opposite is the lazy and stupid form of harassment addressed by Bill C-16. For Peterson (or Professor Peterson or Dr. Peterson as he likely requests his students address him in class) it’s the ro-o-oad to serfdom.
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
@anon50609448
I really appreciate your posts in discussing this, well laid out and well written posts, I applaud your patience!
@Korvexius
The post Humbabella made contained this part, where difference between the old law and the new one is made clear:
You were clear that you think this constitutes compelled speech.
My only question is this: Do you think the old situation was alright and just the adding of “gender identity and expression” went too far? Or do you think the entire law should be scrapped and everyone should be legally free to purposely mislabel anyone they want in sexist, racist and trans-phobic ways?
Fuck Peterson.
Yay Contrapoints!
