Politics in 2018

[pbi]

It is common decency, but that's it and that's all. We can't make every action that does not follow common decency illegal. And to not follow common decency to be a human rights violation? The idea is ludicrous. The test is very easy.... is someone committing violence towards someone by not following their pronouns? No? Then the appropriate response is not violence (forcible confinement). This is why the radical left has come up with terms like "microaggression" and tries to say that these things cause "harm," to people.... because aggression is violence, and harm is the result of violence, so therefore, the appropriate response to it is violence. They are literally trying to control language to make the use of violence against deniers legitimate....

I agree with you. And, as we have both noted, we both know people in the LGBTQ community, whom we treat well and decently, so I doubt we are LGBTQ-phobic.

As a caveat, though, I would say that you can "harm" a person without violence: denying them a job, not promoting them, or firing them solely on the basis of who they are, is harmful as far as I can see. But that isn't actually the point here.

I tend to group these far-left types in the same boat as the "cultural appropriation" crew: worrying about things that actually don't matter all that much, and  at the same time by their antics actually undermining good and useful intentions to see that all people are treated fairly.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sorry but this whole pronoun stuff is ridiculous. There's two genders and a very smile minority of people who want to make up their own. If someone wants to base their whole life around being called MR or Zer or Der then that's great for them. I don't exactly see the lot of these people as major productive members in our society but they're Canadian so call people by whatever they want to be called by. 

It's crazy that I can face legal action for calling Zer Smith Mr Smith by accident but Gerald Butts can call Canadians Nazis and get away with it.


The Alt-Left are actively using violence to censor and shut down free speech running around screaming everyone is a nazi facist and anything they disagree with is hate speech. 
It's great to read the faculty in Kingston didn't shut down Peterson's speech and the school actually stood up to these lunatics.

 

[Loachman]

My pronoun, should any of them ever ask, will be "Master".

Back to Trudeau...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-trump-tariffs-analysis-wherry-1.4565696

How contending with Trump might help Trudeau move past the India debacle

Prime Minister contends with tariff threats after an embarrassing trip abroad

By Aaron Wherry, CBC News  Posted: Mar 08, 2018 4:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 08, 2018 4:00 AM ET

Trudeau has no ability to "contend with" President Trump whatsoever; it is very much the latter in the position of power.

I didn't find the article to be of much interest, but was particularly amused by a comment from one Jill Jenkins: "Best meme yet....Re-electing Trudeau would be like backing up the Titanic and hitting the iceberg again..."

 

[Remius]

Master,

Of course Trump has a position of power.  When they say contend It is along the lines of how he will cope with or deal with the issue that is Donald Trump.  Right now the Liberals look like they handled the Tariff issue or at least Chrysta Frieland did.  Trudeau wants to be the anti trump. And that will play well with some people.

This Tariff thing was a lucky break for Trudeau.  No worries, I’m sure there will be more gaffes to come.

 

[ballz]

As a caveat, though, I would say that you can "harm" a person without violence: denying them a job, not promoting them, or firing them solely on the basis of who they are, is harmful as far as I can see. But that isn't actually the point here.

Well, freedom of association would take us down a whole other tangent, which is one I would very much enjoy because my thoughts on freedom of association vs discrimination are not quite defined down to a nuanced level yet.

But with regards to freedom of speech, there is no strong argument to made that offending someone is harming them.

I tend to group these far-left types in the same boat as the "cultural appropriation" crew: worrying about things that actually don't matter all that much, and  at the same time by their antics actually undermining good and useful intentions to see that all people are treated fairly.

Agreed. They are poison.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we don't do a proper study we might install a pipeline that identifies as an oiler tanker, how embarrassing would that be.  I'd like to ensure I'm using the proper pronoun when addressing the pipeline too.

I would suggest a pipeline that identifies as a train, a very long train....

 

[a_majoor]

WRT the pronoun thing, there are two ways to take this:

1. Someone is trying to force us to play a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose". Since there is no objective criteria (and the person trying to force their views on you can change their position on a whim), you are trapped in a rigged game. I see no reason to be forced into a lose lose position just to satisfy the needs of some jackass to play power games.

2. The person is mentally ill, and needs help. Unfortunately, pandering to mental illness isn't offering help, and indeed could end up being more damaging in the long run.

Professor Peterson offers a clear way of dealing with the issue in a non confrontational manner (but if you read his book, he also points out that the biological division into two sexes is over a billion years old, long before there were multicellular animals, and many of the neurological responses in the human brain can be mapped on lobster brains, which developed over 250 million years ago, long before there were dinosaurs, so things like sex, gender and sexual roles have been hard wired into life and existence for unimaginable amounts of time.

These things are not "constructs" at all, but more like the geological plates the continents sit atop of. To deny reality is to descend into madness.

 

[jollyjacktar]

These things are not "constructs" at all, but more like the geological plates the continents sit atop of. To deny reality is to descend into madness.

Or the looney left, SJW, ❄ mindset.  I would include the looney right, as they're just as looney but they seem to agree on traditional pronouns/assignment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Or the looney left, SJW, ❄ mindset.  I would include the looney right, as they're just as looney but they seem to agree on traditional pronouns/assignment.

The looney right uses the 'royal' we and third person though. :rofl:

 

[pbi]

..But with regards to freedom of speech, there is no strong argument to made that offending someone is harming them...

IMHO this lies at the heart of the issue. If we all have an inalienable  right not to be offended, there is no meaningful possibility of free speech. Unless you are just talking about the weather (and even then...), you are at risk of offending somebody. Any meaningful statement of principles, beliefs, convictions or even of impressions can be offensive to somebody. Just look at what happens on this site!

The point of fine judgement lies in determining where "offending" ends, and "threatening" starts. For example:

"X community are responsible for their own misfortunes because they don't condemn Y actions by their members". That might be offensive to members of "X" community.

But "X community are a filthy cancer on our society and an immediate danger! We must eradicate them and drive them out our country now! All of them!!" is clearly threatening, and possibly bordering on criminal.

But those are black and white examples which are easy to judge. If we agree that "snowflakes" and "lefties" have no inherent right not to be offended by the expressions of people to the right of them on the spectrum, (and I do) then that must extend to everybody. So, just because you are offended by somebody saying something unpatriotic, or attacking the military, or marching in a leather thong in a Pride Parade, doesn't give you the right to shut them down.

A problem we can all see, (and I lay this largely on those at the more left end of things) is that the clear meaning of the words "violence" and "harm" have been debased almost to the point of meaninglessness, like the words  "racism", "hero" and "elites".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've never attended a Pride Parade and it's a Crown Royal bag, not a leather thong. rly:

 

[pbi]

I've never attended a Pride Parade and it's a Crown Royal bag, not a leather thong. rly:

OK that image is actually no better... :-X

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Seriously though, a person should have the right to their opinion, on anything to anyone.

The caveat though is that you need to be prepared to accept the consequences. Whether HRC or a punch in the face.

If I complained, as a kid, that someone was calling me names, I was told 'sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me, and to suck it up and ignore it. Or put an end to it myself.

 

[Loachman]

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/03/15/appalling-trudeau-government-no-plan-theyre-spending-186-7-billion-infrastructure-money/

APPALLING: Trudeau Government Has NO PLAN For How They’re Spending $186.7 BILLION In Infrastructure Money

Spencer Fernando March 15, 2018

"Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government is not providing the details needed on how so much money is planned to be spent.

"The Trudeau Liberals have made a big deal about their “historic investments” in infrastructure.

"Now however, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the Trudeau government has no plan on how to spend a whopping $186.7 BILLION in proposed infrastructure money.

"As noted by the CP, “Parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette says the Liberals don’t yet have a plan for how the federal government will spend $186.7 billion in infrastructure money over the next 12 years.”"

 

[Loachman]

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/03/15/unity-is-our-strength/

Unity Is Our Strength

Spencer Fernando March 15, 2018

"Canadians must be united around core values and a shared historic legacy, and we must not let our nation become a platform for the fights and grievances of foreign lands.

"A nation without unity is not really a nation at all. It’s simply a collection of people who happen to share the same territory.

"Unfortunately, that is increasingly what Canada is becoming."

 

[Jed]

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/03/15/unity-is-our-strength/

Unity Is Our Strength

Spencer Fernando March 15, 2018

"Canadians must be united around core values and a shared historic legacy, and we must not let our nation become a platform for the fights and grievances of foreign lands.

"A nation without unity is not really a nation at all. It’s simply a collection of people who happen to share the same territory.

"Unfortunately, that is increasingly what Canada is becoming."

This seems to be about 180 degrees different from  this Liberal Majority government who purport that "Diversity is our Strength"

 

[Loachman]

Yes.

Mr Fernando is no more a Trudeau fan than I am.

 

[Loachman]

Andrew Scheer 2019 Campaign Ad #2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nfqnWM6FTM

 

[Brad Sallows]

The fuss about gender identity pronouns is just a variation of "face" games: one group trying to set the terms by which another group will kowtow/engage.

The pronouns are third person.  It isn't usual for people in a conversation to refer to parties present in the third person.  Parties not present at a conversation have no right or privilege to dictate how they are referenced, including no authority to forbid name-calling.

 

[larry Strong]

So he just finished a 8 day holiday in India and now he's off again.................

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/as-trudeau-vacations-in-florida-details-are-once-again-scarce




Cheers
Larry

Edited to remove personal attack