What Jordan Peterson says

Originally posted by Scribble
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/how-people-whitesplain-racism/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/melissaboyajian/women-try-manspreading-for-a-week?utm_term=.kbnY1W9YL#.qcbGdKEGw

https://mronline.org/2018/06/20/times-up-for-capitalist-patriarchal-racism-and-not-just-for-the-men-who-perform-it/

YouTube video

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mark-meechan-fined-youtube-video-of-dog-giving-nazi-salute-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-female-boxer-gives-female-opponent-concussion-breaks-her-eye-so

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/genderfluid-parents-non-binary-son/

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/29514-unmasking-antifa-act-proposed-in-u-s-house-left-responds-accordingly

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/16/uc-berkeley-sued-injuries-sustained-antifa-riot/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/racial-microagressions-you-hear-on-a-daily-basis?utm_term=.dj2v8MAv5#.td84Jm94v

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html

http://neguswhoread.com/wypipo-explained/

http://kinfolkkollective.com/

https://www.dailydot.com/via/reverse-racism-doesnt-exist/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/asian-american-groups-doj-affirmative-action-definition-ivy-league-harvard-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

Also, these are not answers to my questions. It's gish-galloping in the form of several links. I want to hear your thoughts and maybe have some of them supplemented by links, not just a collection of links without your perspective.

You people take this sh!t too seriously.

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.

I watched the parliamentary hearings and in a nutshell the outcome is this:

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. Personal names and pronouns are two fundamental ways we express gender and how others perceive our gender. Traditional gender pronouns (she/her, he/him) do not fit everyone’s gender identity.

And the problem Jordan Peterson had with the bill was this:

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

Which then, of course, led to this:

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

So the law doesn't dictate gender or identity, it allows the individual to self proclaim their status and hold other people around them to their individual beliefs and what they can now "force" certain language on others.

It isn't a criminal law to not use the appropriate pronouns but you can be fined etc.

This is taken from:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

The Lost (using your name here is useful as I'm not quoting a specific post), you've made a lot of points (and a lot of good points), so I'm posting to let you know that I will respond eventually, but I may not have time today. However, I'll do some research, see if I can find a few useful things to cite when I do respond. One point I can already agree on is that I'm not 100% informed on every topic (which is generally why I take varying political stances – to gather opposing opinions and weigh them up), so I can always do better in that regard.

Your commitment to discourse is highly admirable. You put many other posters here to shame, even if I still have plenty of other points to disagree with you on. Anyway, yeah, I'll reply fully in good time.

@snowdragon:

The law doesn't dictate gender or identity. It adds "gender identity" and "gender expressions" to the CHRA. This is adding this to a list of pre-existing enforceable protections against workplace harassment or hate speech in general. Like I said previously, we make these trade-offs and there are already anti-discrimination law that "compels" speech.

That trade-off I'm discussing is outlined here, in the link you provided:

The Supreme Court has also found that some limits on free speech are justifiable to protect people from harassment and discrimination in social areas like employment and services.

It means you cannot deny service, employment, or other services/benefits to individuals based on gender expression/identity. This is not necessarily "forcing" language. It's for service/employment protection and harassment. It doesn't mean you can be fined or whatnot for misgendering someone even a handful of times. It needs to constitute harassment and showcase that it's prevented someone who identifies or expresses a certain gender from accessing a service or gaining/maintaining employment.

@Scribble:

Yeah, no problem. We're cluttering the shit out of this thread as well, so we can continue the debate via PM or perhaps open a thread? Just let me know.

It means you cannot deny service, employment, or other services/benefits to individuals based on gender expression/identity. This is not necessarily "forcing" language. It's for service/employment protection and harassment. It doesn't mean you can be fined or whatnot for misgendering someone even a handful of times. It needs to constitute harassment and showcase that it's prevented someone who identifies or expresses a certain gender from accessing a service or gaining/maintaining employment.

So the law doesn't dictate gender or identity, it allows the individual to self proclaim their status and hold other people around them to those individual beliefs and they can now "force" certain language on others.

That is compulsion of speech, not the same thing as FREE speech. That is what irritated peters, not the entirety of a protected class. He plainly explains that in parliament.

Originally posted by snowdragon
So the law doesn't dictate gender or identity, it allows the individual to self proclaim their status and hold other people around them to those individual beliefs and they can now "force" certain language on others.

That is compulsion of speech, not the same thing as FREE speech. That is what irritated peters, not the entirety of a protected class. He plainly explains that in parliament.

What do you mean when you say the law doesn't "dictate" gender or identity? I'd like you to explain that more, if you would. I think we're talking past each other.

I know what irritated Peters and I've should have been more clear about how much I don't care. We make compromises and trade-offs when it comes to that so trans people, and other classes, can work productively or acquire services without being subject to harassment and/or degradation that can occur with zero legal protection.

It's the freedom to not have to endure being called something VS the freedom to call someone something but I will admit that explanation lacks proper nuance, especially considering all of the variables of the bill and what it entails (harassment, location, etc.) However, that is the fundamental "trade-off" I refer to with C-16. I usually go with the former in specific circumstances like this because I don't want people to suffer in society. It will effect us all if even our smaller classes (such as transsexual individuals) do not have protections.

What do you mean when you say the law doesn't "dictate" gender or identity? I'd like you to explain that more, if you would. I think we're talking past each other.

The law doesn't state what the appropriate pronouns are for the different genders/identities and it is determined by the individual. Therefore if they want you to use XI as an example and you decline than that can be considered harassment if you continue dialogue with them and don't use said pronoun. That isn't a free speech issue, that's the use of force to coerce speech.

Which is why I stated the bill didn't just create a new protected class, it went much further than that.

@Lost I respect someone who is actually willing to put time and effort into their posts. Good on you.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The law doesn't state what the appropriate pronouns are for the different genders/identities and it is determined by the individual. Therefore if they want you to use XI as an example and you decline than that can be considered harassment if you continue dialogue with them and don't use said pronoun. That isn't a free speech issue, that's the use of force to coerce speech.

Which is why I stated the bill didn't just create a new protected class, it went much further than that.

Bingo.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The law doesn't state what the appropriate pronouns are for the different genders/identities and it is determined by the individual. Therefore if they want you to use XI as an example and you decline than that can be considered harassment if you continue dialogue with them and don't use said pronoun. That isn't a free speech issue, that's the use of force to coerce speech.

Which is why I stated the bill didn't just create a new protected class, it went much further than that.

So, the law doesn't dictate pronouns then? Don't know why you said "gender and identity." These are both terms used the CHRA when Bill C-16 allowed them to be added to the CHRA.

Yes, the law does not, but it's not just about using the wrong pronoun. It's for harassment and is very specifically related to denying services or from workplace protection. You cannot be fined, jailed, quartered, or whatever-the-fuck in this country if you call someone who wishes to have "XI" used "him" or "her." Nowhere does it say in the bill that if you make that error and continue conversation, it constitutes harassment unless, well, harassment was involved (talking AT the person without stopping, following them and speaking, etc.)

It covers harassment and everything else I've mentioned multiple times. Also, since "they" can be appropriately used if you're unsure, your theoretical problem dies off anyway.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
@Lost I respect someone who is actually willing to put time and effort into their posts. Good on you.

Thank you for your compliment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T47opnLyFw

Originally posted by The Lost
I don't think you have to atone for it but I do think the error says more than you'd say it does about where you politically stand. Like I said previously, I think you might have more to consider about what these things mean. So no, not laughable. [/B]

You shouldn't have to say "i'm" anything. Your positions should be based on specific issues with issue specific information, not what group of people you align with.

The candidates you vote should be based on

-> the quantity of issues you align closer to them than the alternative
-> the importance of the issues you align closer to one than the other.

"I'm centrist" or "both sides are bad" is a lazy way of avoiding making a choice. If you don't feel you are qualified or willing to make a choice, don't. But don't try to claim the high ground with forced objectivity.

Do people forget Centrism has it's own legitimate values beyond "both sides are bad"? Like, it's not just a cop-out to say you don't belong to either a right or a left, it's a legitimate ideology with it's own principles that happens to borrow some ideas from both right and the left.

Originally posted by MythLord
Do people forget Centrism has it's own legitimate values beyond "both sides are bad"? Like, it's not just a cop-out to say you don't belong to either a right or a left, it's a legitimate ideology with it's own principles that happens to borrow some ideas from both right and the left.

Bingo. There are things from both sides I agree with, but I can also see both sides are toxic and both present their own unique threats to the country.

Originally posted by MythLord
Do people forget Centrism has it's own legitimate values beyond "both sides are bad"? Like, it's not just a cop-out to say you don't belong to either a right or a left, it's a legitimate ideology with it's own principles that happens to borrow some ideas from both right and the left.

I agree, many use the term "centrist" just to say "I don't belong to any political party", but in that case you're not centrist, you're indifferent.

Well I'm mainly referring to the people who are centrist because "we should be middle of the road" on the assumption that the best principles lie in the middle. No. You have to justify why the middle of the road is best, not just assume it's best because it's middle of the road.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not sure why people need to make a position on their "Overall alignments"