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.
Originally posted by MythLord
Not so much lost, as I just sorta don't care where I fall.
I'm gonna do something else now.
I leave you with a gift:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGE9Gi0bB0
At one point in this thread I linked to a pathetic article from Cracked about JP. Once again featuring someone whining about him and getting a shitload wrong. Sargon has now done a video on this: enjoy.
Sargon is a good candidate to discuss JP. JP has been wrongly labeled alt right by people who are just not very bright. Nobody with intelligence could label him alt right, so at least when people do so we know we're dealing with someone who is deeply stupid.
Sargon himself is a liberal who has also been mistakenly labeled alt right. Again: this is only done by the intellectually challenged, not sane adults.
Originally posted by MythLord
We should just make an all-Jordan Peterson thread where people post anything related to him, whether it be his intellectual dishonesty, his motivational support to young men or his... idk, dirty room?
When you think about it...the title of the thread already fits a thread like that. We are indeed discussing what Jordan Peterson says, including how some react to it.
Originally posted by The Lost
@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:
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.
Well meaning laws, that will no doubt make some lawyers very rich.
Back in 1991-1992, there was an atheist lawyer/father who sent his 12 year old son, and later his daughter, to the boy scouts and girl scouts. He did this knowing full well the scouts entail a belief in "god", as they have for decades.
Predictibly, there was a conflict over "god". And the father sued, to the tune of 250,000.
This was an obvious easy money scheme, and something all too common. (It also wasn't widely reported. I read this from reports, as is my hobby, to play a game of "follow the money". Someone sues, my first question is "Are they after money, or is this about ideals?"
It's usually about money, unfortunately..)