On corporations and outrage culture

[hom]

There is a difference between offending someone once or twice (either accidentally or on purpose) and then stopping, and seeking out someone to harass them. One of those should be legal, and there should be laws against the other. Where that line gets drawn is admittedly kinda murky and grey but there needs to be one. After all, your freedom of speech doesnt get to infringe on my freedom to not be harassed, but similarly my freedom to not be harassed doesnt get to infringe on your freedom of speech.

It's exactly where this grey area stands within the Canadian Legal system that is the issue.
The Human Rights Tribunal has the power to impose non criminal fines on anyone that breaks discrimination laws, even just once believe it or not.

It's a poorly written law that isn't enforced equally. And if you know anything about law, a poorly written and enforced law is dangerous.
It gives the state power over groups of individuals when they feel like it instead of enforcing them fairly.
A good example is the Mann Act better known as the white slavery act

I'm actually not though. Since youre re-reading this thread (sicko shit, dude) make sure you catch what Im actually advocating.

That there is a point where freedoms meet and (ideally) laws exist to navigate that intersection.

For instance, if I can try to clarify: You're free to call me names. Anything you want really, and I think you should be free to do that. But I'm also free to walk away and ignore you. But if you insist on following me, now we're talking about something beyond free speech. We're drifting into harassment territory.

Imagine now that we're coworkers and you call me names every day because you think its funny. I can't really walk away because hey, I work here. So I ask you to stop, and you dont. Free speech, after all amirite? This is also drifting into harassment. You're making the place I work a hostile environment. Work place harassment laws exist for this (and more severe) reasons.

There is a difference between offending someone once or twice (either accidentally or on purpose) and then stopping, and seeking out someone to harass them. One of those should be legal, and there should be laws against the other. Where that line gets drawn is admittedly kinda murky and grey but there needs to be one. After all, your freedom of speech doesnt get to infringe on my freedom to not be harassed, but similarly my freedom to not be harassed doesnt get to infringe on your freedom of speech.

its possible, you guys are a dime a dozen around here

Yeah I fully agree about the harrasment thing.
But it shouldn't constitute harrasment if one uses a certain pronoun another disagrees with.

That's the divider here. Canadian law defines a preffered pronoun as an expression of gender identity.
That's forcing one to change their everyday language in order to not breach this law, that's where I draw the line.

Just because one group of people, whoever they are, decides that they're offended by a word doesn't mean there must be legislation against its use.
Especially an everyday term such as a pronoun its absolutely rediculous and down right dangerous as what's to say that another group won't become offended by another word, term or phrase, oh another group is now offended by this or that.. We must legislate against its use and fine those that breach this act.

 

[Chops]

But it shouldn't constitute harrasment if one uses a certain pronoun another disagrees with.

I think this is getting at the crux of our disagreement so Im gonna focus here.

You're right, it shouldnt be against the law to misgender someone. Accidentally or on purpose. But if they correct you, and you *continue* to do it, then it becomes harassment.

This is one of those situations where your freedom intersects theirs. And their freedom to define their identity and your freedom of speech collide right here, right? Canadian law says their freedom to define themselves wins over your freedom to define them... and it seems like it should, right? At least I feel that theres greater freedom had when people get to define themselves instead of letting other people define them? That feels right. And when people insist on trying to define you against your wishes and knowingly persist in behavior that tries to strip that freedom from you? Thats harassment, right?

Its not about offending or taking offense. Thats secondary to the actual problem here.

 

[hom]

Canadian law says their freedom to define themselves wins over your freedom to define them... and it seems like it should, right?

Just to be clear if someone asked me to call them by a specific pronoun I would do my best to remember but I shouldn't have to by law, that's my freedom of expression. I shouldn't have to adapt my everyday, established language to someone else's preference.

Can you just imagine being a teacher or a doctor or a fireman or a shopkeeper or a judge, accidentally using the wrong pronoun and therefore breaching someones human rights unintentionally... it's a terrible terrible piece of legislation that won't be enforced properly until someone decided they have the money and power to take you in front of a Human Rights Tribunal - That's dangerous and it's opened the doors to more groups protesting the use of other everyday established language.

The other point is that it forces you to subscribe to the idea of multiple genders which I simply don't agree with and shouldn't have to because of any law.

 

[Crystalpall]

Just to be clear if someone asked me to call them by a specific pronoun I would do my best to remember but I shouldn't have to by law, that's my freedom of expression. I shouldn't have to adapt my everyday, established language to someone else's preference.

Can you just imagine being a teacher or a doctor or a fireman or a shopkeeper or a judge, accidentally using the wrong pronoun and therefore breaching someones human rights unintentionally... it's a terrible terrible piece of legislation that won't be enforced properly until someone decided they have the money and power to take you in front of a Human Rights Tribunal - That's dangerous and it's opened the doors to more groups protesting the use of other everyday established language.

The other point is that it forces you to subscribe to the idea of multiple genders which I simply don't agree with and shouldn't have to because of any law.

you’d just get corrected and no big deal unless you intentionally keep repeating it, Chops literally said so above as well, are you omitting that on purpose?

 

[Chops]

Can you just imagine being a teacher or a doctor or a fireman or a shopkeeper or a judge, accidentally using the wrong pronoun and therefore breaching someones human rights unintentionally...

You're fixated on this and I dont know how many more ways I can tell you that that's not how the law is written or (it seems) enforced. I can't show you any more ways than I already have that the law is in fact written to *protect* you from being charged erroneously for simple, understandable mistakes AND to protect you from being charged for what they call "reasonable" levels of discriminatory behavior. Its in the law itself. I've tried pointing that out to you like 3 or 4 times and you just keep blowing right past it to whine about imaginary scenarios.

The other point is that it forces you to subscribe to the idea of multiple genders which I simply don't agree with and shouldn't have to because of any law.

No it doesnt. The law is written to include gender identity in harassment and discrimination code. Following a muslim around and throwing bacon at them is against the law, but that law isnt forcing you to believe in Islam. Following a black person around and shouting the n word at them is against the law but that law doesnt force you to not be a white supremacist. Following a trans person around and yelling slurs is against this law but it doesnt force you to accept biology.

 

[hom]

you’d just get corrected and no big deal unless you intentionally keep repeating it, Chops literally said so above as well, are you omitting that on purpose?

Thing is, you're immediately breaking their discrimination act so you could be brought before a human rights tribunal in principle.
And that's just ridiculous because chances are you wont.
This is then a law that isn't enforced equally, the dangers of a law like this is that those in power can pick and choose when to enforce it and use it against certain groups or individuals from their digression.

The White Slavery act is a great example of a law which wasn't equally enforced and instead the state applied it unproportionally higher against black men.

 

[Selaya]

Nice way to encounter my constructive criticism. Editing my message to TL;DR and then put zero effort into your response. Maybe you should reconsider who actually is the shitposting troll around here?

i actually glanced over your response
in any case, this wasn't considered in a vacuum but in the given context that you, have in the past been one of our most worthless shittrolls around

so yeah boy who cried wolf blah somethin'

 

[Chops]

Thing is, you're immediately breaking their discrimination act so you could be brought before a human rights tribunal in principle.

I fucking give up

 

[hom]

protect you from being charged for what they call "reasonable" levels of discriminatory behavior.

This vague definition of what discriminator behavior is what I'm talking about. It could be a one time offence in their definitions of the law. Law is all about imaginary scenarios mate, you have to explore all possibilities of the law coming into play and how/when it could be abused and misused.

Following a muslim around and throwing bacon at them is against the law, but that law isnt forcing you to believe in Islam..

This analogy is in no way similar to this pronoun situation. The pronoun issue is that you are compelled by law to use a certain set of words another person prefers and adapt your everyday language to suit them and their preferences.
In doing so you adapt your language to suit the theory of multiple genders which I believe should be protected by your freedom of expression (freedom of expression also covers your opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority).

Out disagreement is here, in how these freedoms interact with each other. And if we're going to just butt heads forever then that's fine. Grown ups can disagree without insult, or not your choice.

But I'm damn happy we live in a society that still allows the difference of opinion and the freedom to express that in whatever way I feel like.

 

[Chops]

Out disagreement is here, in how these freedoms interact with each other.

No, our problem is that you lack the reading comprehension necessary to understand a law thats written to specifically protect you in the exact imaginary scenario you keep bringing up.

 

[Goesid]

"But when fall comes, kicking summer out on its treacherous ass as it always does one day sometime after the midpoint of September, it stays awhile like an old friend that you have missed. It settles in the way an old friend will settle into your favorite chair and take out his pipe and light it and then fill the afternoon with stories of places he has been and things he has done since last he saw you."
- Stephen King

 

[hom]

No, our problem is that you lack the reading comprehension necessary to understand a law thats written to specifically protect you in the exact imaginary scenario you keep bringing up.

"Reasonable" levels of discriminatory behavior as defined by who?
The state.
So they have the power to decide what is considered "reasonable levels of discriminatory behavior".

Sorry but that's just too vague for me to be comfortable with and too easy to misuse and abuse.

 

[Crystalpall]

"Reasonable" levels of discriminatory behavior as defined by who?
The state.
So they have the power to decide what is considered "reasonable levels of discriminatory behavior".

Sorry but that's just too vague for me to be comfortable with and too easy to misuse and abuse.

It's not vague at all, it's written exactly what constitues as harassment.

 

[Chops]

Sorry but that's just too vague for me to be comfortable with and too easy to misuse and abuse.

It's actually pretty specific. You should try reading it.

Also, you should familiarize yourself with more legal code if you think thats vague. gonna blow your fuckin mind how vague all this shit is.

 

[inoobupro]

Didnt read the 5 pages but regarding that outrage culture stuff

Its all a psyop probably

@Crystalpall M8 why do you even care about that cancel culture garbage you are a european who is living across the contient not an american(and yes american "whites" are NOT european they're just americans).

 

[Crystalpall]

Didnt read the 5 pages but regarding that outrage culture stuff

Its all a psyop probably

@Crystalpall M8 why do you even care about that cancel culture garbage you are a european who is living across the contient not an american(and yes american "whites" are NOT european they're just americans).

Why would it matter where I'm from, internet is global.

 

[Goesid]

"I may shock some by saying 'I would beat such provocateurs ten times more if they wore monks robes,' and 'I would clap hands at seeing another monk barbecue show, for one can not be responsible for the madness of others.“ — Madame Nhu

 

[inoobupro]

Why would it matter where I'm from, internet is global.

Thats the whole point. Now there's like over a billion americanized persons who care more about whats happening over there than their own backyards because their backyard is boring. Its disgusting.

American (and to a less extent, western) political discourse has grown dysfunctional and unstable over the years and its in any self respecting Europeans interest to create a cordon sanitaire from Americans and other new worlders who attempt to overlay American dynamics on a European context.




You know what...this atlaticist neoliberalism that you keep pining for so hard

I hope Biden wins(not really tbh) so Poland will be targeted by a Biden regime/Soros. I mean PiS are next on the chopping block by US state Department. Inc airdropped radical LGBT activists to Poland.

 

[Daltert Moropi]

i'd think i'll bump my thread on the presidential debates of 2020 of Biden vs. Trump start up when that happens.

Although to be fair... I will say one side clearly has a better standing than the other from all the videos from both sides of the story i'm reading/viewing thus far.

 

[Crystalpall]

Thats the whole point. Now there's like over a billion americanized persons who care more about whats happening over there than their own backyards because their backyard is boring. Its disgusting.

American (and to a less extent, western) political discourse has grown dysfunctional and unstable over the years and its in any self respecting Europeans interest to create a cordon sanitaire from Americans and other new worlders who attempt to overlay American dynamics on a European context.




You know what...this atlaticist neoliberalism that you keep pining for so hard

I hope Biden wins(not really tbh) so Poland will be targeted by a Biden regime/Soros. I mean PiS are next on the chopping block by US state Department. Inc airdropped radical LGBT activists to Poland.

I'm sorry but I'm not good enough with political buzzwords in english to understand what you're saying. I want to discuss ideas not politicians.