I'm worried because a law was passed with the intention to compel speech, something I stand against on moral grounds. Even if it were done for a 'positive' reason, it's something I disagree with. There's a lunatic in the White House and there's a different kind of lunatic in the... Canadian White House, too.
Nah, some lines were changed in the CHRA to protect transgendered people from workplace abuse. It's class protection, like minorities have in the States and Canada. It just means, for example, I cannot call someone who identifies as female "Bob" or "Frank" a bunch or it's considered discrimination, which seems pretty straightforward.
We make consistent trade-offs like this constantly so people can live freely without suffering abuse or encumbrance. I know you've heard lots of things about Bill C-16 but have you even bothered to look into it? You talked about second-hand information when having a discussion with Robtard. I thought you didn't support that, despite the fact that a lot of your perspective comes off as utterly second-hand.
If the Left isn't just as dangerous as the Right (I consider them to be equal in terms of how they can be used negatively), then explain the USSR and Maoist China. Explain the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Yeah, the Left is really ****ing dangerous.
You cannot only measure them with how they CAN be used negatively. That makes little sense. One is overwhelmingly more dangerous than the other right now, particularly in North America and even in some parts of Europe. Of course, we can discuss potentiality. Every political spectrum, just by it's very nature of existing, has that potentiality. Do I think it's anywhere as dangerous as the right, alt-right, or more right now? Unequivocally, no. I don't.
This doesn't mean I ignore the failings and faults of the left. Hell, it usually irks me even more because I typically associated with them. Everyone has partisan leanings, to some degree, but I try to distance myself as much as possible. I am just very vocal about the state of the right wing in a lot of developing nations because they are offered many dangerous, outdated, and morally bankrupt ideas.
We can discuss who's been worse historically, if you'd like, but I said the left is not more dangerous than the right. That means TODAY and the implication is pretty fair. It does not mean who WAS more dangerous. If we were, I'd bring up Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of Italy, a slew of South American countries, etc.
The students in 1960s America had something to fight for. These students have some things to fight for, but they're doing it in all the wrong ways. Their shutting down of 'hate speech' is nothing but them shutting down people they don't want to listen to. Shutting down Richard Spencer: yes, shut the ****er down. He's a racist ideologue and he has no place in society. Shutting down Shaprio? Yeah, no. Which leads me to...
No, there's plenty to still fight for. That's silly. I hope the implication isn't that, because there's no war, there isn't much left to fight for. I mean, we still have war anyway. lol
Right? I mean, or it's shutting down hate speech. Perhaps they have legitimate reasons why they may not want to hear these people? You're a centrist. You can see it from their angle, right? At least a bit? Students act like this anyway. They're trying to sort through complicated perspectives and new ideas during their time in University. Now, it doesn't necessarily mean they're right or wrong but it breeds an environment of extremism, which has been present in education for a long time, especially in America.
Shapiro can be a problem, to be honest. He has some really underdeveloped and caustic views on white privilege and transsexual individuals. Even Peterson tends to respect calling someone what they wish to be labeled, from what I understand. Shapiro has openly referred to trans men as women and trans women as men. He has repeated, time and time again, that trans suicide rates stay consistent even after transistion, which is demonstrably false. He also claims trans individuals are "simply delusional."
We can talk more about Shapiro, if you'd like as well.
I know Rubin to be moderate because he's laid out his political beliefs, and they're moderate. He doesn't need to tell me that. He doesn't give a platform to extremists, not as far as I've seen – who isn't an extremist in your eyes, though? Is Shapiro an extremist? Christina Hoff Sommers? Joe Rogan? Peterson?
How about Dinesh D'Souza, Roseanne Barr, Steven Crowder, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc?
Most of the mainstream media in the US is Left, and tends more and more towards twisted versions of the truth. They're just as culpable as an outlet like Breitbart for the propagation of false or biased narratives. There is very little journalistic integrity left anywhere. However, more people consume left-wing media overall, because there's more of it. Right-wing journalism has become slightly more esoteric overall, I suppose, and cultivated a more cult-like audience, but I couldn't say which is more damaging to society overall. Each do their part in playing the people off against each other.
A lot of them aren't great but how can you actually sit here and compare these institutes to Breitbart? So, a lot of leftist new sources can make mistakes and publish shoddy information. However, a lot of mainstream left news sources (including the dreaded CNN) have fired reporters for publishing inaccurate information or amending articles after the fact. Breitbart does not do this. The Daily Caller does not do this. InfoWars does not do this. Even if they've done it before, they have a slew of articles containing false information or bunk science. How does this not fundamentally bother you?
Also, there are, scientifically, only two genders. I believe there to be a lot of undiscovered interplay, mentally, between the two poles, but that doesn't stop the basic science from being true. You claim to be against the anti-science stuff... but clearly only when it suits your social agenda.
If you continue to say things like this that are flagrantly incorrect, we cannot have a conversation. I refuse to maintain a discussion with someone who will posit something like, "There are scientifically only two genders." Scientific consensus concerning this issue disagrees with you and everyone else when it comes to this absolutely ridiculous notion of "only two genders."
Now, observably, sex is usually binary. As in, most people either identify as male or female. Gender is culturally and socially constructed. Now, biology is a component of gender but not a defining component. Period. This is how it works and you should look more into this before saying "scientifically" there are only two genders.
Btw, I could be considered Trans: I have never identified, mentally, with either gender, although my biological sex is clearly that of a male. At one point I wanted to transition, because of an extreme dysphoria that I believed to stem from a clash between my mental 'gender' and by body. This passed, luckily; it likely just stemmed from mental illness (I have BPD and general depression). So thank god I didn't transition, right? It wouldn't have lessened my chance of suicide, either. Trans issues are super complicated and the Left approach is not helping matters. It's reductive and asinine and unfounded in science. Many on the Right are disgustingly reductive about it too, and I stand against them, too. But it doesn't change the fact that the Left's attempts at 'caring' and 'understanding' are basically just muddying the waters and making things worse.
You need to elaborate more on this. I need to understand how the left aren't helping trans issues when they are seemingly the only ones that realistically care or engage relevant and current scientific literature on the topic of transsexualism. You said the left was screaming but what I hear from the right is, "Gender dysphoria is a mental illness" and "you're still a man/woman", with both statements being horrendously inaccurate.
The fact that you see 'The Right' and 'The Left' as such concrete entities is telling of your limited perspective. Everything seems to be hegemony to you, and if you dislike both sides, that makes you a centrist, which makes you right-wing, which makes you a goddamn garden-ruiner! Or something?
You're not sitting here complaining about both sides. You're harping on the left and claiming the right and center are places for the discussion and the left is not. You agree with a number of platforms the right support on the regular, such as "two genders", you equivocate left media sources with right-leaning media sources (which is ridiculous. I don't care how much you hate the left or the right, right-leaning media institutions are garbage right now. This does not mean I disagree with all of their ideas, as I actually typically lean towards some economically conversative ideas, but the state of right-leaning news? It's abysmal), and then every so often when you post, vaguely go, "Yeah, the left too."
The right and left aren't concrete entities but I think you're asserted that they're far more nebulous than they actually are.