Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I went back and read the original judgement.  This person sincerely believes trans women aren't women and goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that.  She even misgenders people.  If you did that where I work you would be fired.  If you did it off site they would have a word with you, pay you to quit or not renew your contract.

And that's perfectly fine with this guy who claims to believe in freedom of speech.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 643
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anybody can be racist against any other race, but most people are not racist.  I guess that was what Day was commenting on.  Obviously intolerance goes far beyond mere racism.

I think we have given too many special interest groups a voice, and a stage to be heard, (more on the left side) and now today they are all screaming at the same time, and nobody is really hearing any

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scho

Posted Images

On 7/3/2020 at 11:15 PM, Michael Hardner said:

6. I went back and read the original judgement.  This person sincerely believes trans women aren't women and goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that.  She even misgenders people.  If you did that where I work you would be fired.  If you did it off site they would have a word with you, pay you to quit or not renew your contract.

**I'm not much of a weekend poster, so my apologies if you've moved on by now. **

The judgement doesn't tell you much other than that they were throwing the book at her.  It gives you very little insight on what she's actually trying to say or what her arguments are.  Read what she actually said and her reasoning behind it, then talk about it.  In case you don't feel like it, her position is very close to Jordan Peterson's initial podcast (which you supported?).  

You're clearly talking about censorship, and from your responses it's equally clear you support it (though you claim otherwise).  Within limits,  I suppose I support it too, but not to the extent we're seeing with this sort of stuff.  It's worth noting, as you said, that her contract wasn't renewed (rather than her being fired), but how is that any different than Jordan Peterson having his research funding denied (which you thought was wrong, IIRC)?  

What we're seeing with examples like this is systematic word-and-thought policing.  Though we're hardly in Orwellian territory at this point, we are watching our ability to disagree with one another curtailed and the standards being applied are very lopsided.   One the one side, folks who are questioning and wanting to debate the language, implications and conclusions of social value issues are being cowed into silence.  The other side of the debate is not only emboldened by the inability of their opponents to speak up, they're also being given what seems to be carte-blanche to loudly and angrily throw their rhetoric wherever they please with little/no consequences. 

This is a feedback loop and it's not just a matter of reddit trolls flinging insults and threats at each other.  It's being reinforced at an institutional level and especially at our universities. 

You keep saying "let's debate", but that's being facile.  Where and how do we debate?  When it's okay for university professors to call me transphobic for saying I don't want to date trans women, what platform do I have?  What platform does a university professor have if he gets de-funded for speaking against the prevailing winds?  How do I share an opinion or criticize exaggerated hyperbole when I can lose my job for it (or "not have my contract renewed")?  

You're criticizing Argus' OP for being too broad and vague, but you're arguing semantics and not really addressing the issue itself.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. **I'm not much of a weekend poster, so my apologies if you've moved on by now. **

2. The judgement doesn't tell you much other than that they were throwing the book at her. 

3. ... her position is very close to Jordan Peterson's initial podcast (which you supported?).  

4. You're clearly talking about censorship, and from your responses it's equally clear you support it (though you claim otherwise). 

5. how is that any different than Jordan Peterson having his research funding denied (which you thought was wrong, IIRC)?  

6. ...we are watching our ability to disagree with one another curtailed and the standards being applied are very lopsided.   

7. Where and how do we debate?  When it's okay for university professors to call me transphobic for saying I don't want to date trans women, what platform do I have?  What platform does a university professor have if he gets de-funded for speaking against the prevailing winds?  How do I share an opinion or criticize exaggerated hyperbole when I can lose my job for it (or "not have my contract renewed")?  

8. You're criticizing Argus' OP for being too broad and vague, but you're arguing semantics and not really addressing the issue itself.  

1. No worries.

2. Did you read the full judgment?  It's something like 26 pages u think ?

3. Not at all.  Peterson was against 'forced speech' meaning the government forces you to say a word.  He wasn't denying the womanhood of trans women.  Further to that, he said he might use requested pronouns depending on how it was asked of him.

4. Censorship occurs when the government disallows you from saying something - not counting hate speech.  You can be fired for saying something merely distasteful, and that is not censorship.

5. At the point where the funding was denied he was expressing concerns over forces speech only.

6. I can see why you think that.  At the point where a group is declared as protected from discrimination, the debate starts to close and we move on. In 1965, people who were still expressing support for segregation started experiencing reactions for their views.  This is what we're seeing here.

7. Ok, so for this I am lacking a good answer.  I would say that a good debate includes folks with authority, and a clear purpose to progress a question.  That's off the top of my head.

8. If you have a response to my point #7, maybe we could discover something together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Censorship occurs when the government disallows you from saying something - not counting hate speech.  You can be fired for saying something merely distasteful, and that is not censorship.

The idea that no one can censor you but government flies in the face of common sense when the public sphere is now controlled by a few very large, woke, oligarchs It also flies in the face of common sense. Can only government discriminate? Can only government have systemic racism?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I can see why you think that.  At the point where a group is declared as protected from discrimination, the debate starts to close and we move on. In 1965, people who were still expressing support for segregation started experiencing reactions for their views.  This is what we're seeing here.

And there you have it. All issues of transgenderism are "closed" subjects. The Left has made its decision and it's time to move on. Further discussion is now forbidden. Of course, the fact that the whole issue of trasngenderism is still wide open as far as the public is concerned is apparently irrelevant.

Let me quote a small portion of the public letter Glen Loury wrote in response to his university's chancellor issuing a long, woke manifesto in the wake of the George Floyd death.

"... or more menacingly , it asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they were axiomatic certainties."

Glen Loury was the first black economist given tenure at Harvard. I posted a discussion he had with John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia on the "as seen on youtube" topic the other day. It's interesting that even two eminent black scholars, towards the end of the discussion, talked about the risk to their jobs and careers for going against the woke religion. They both referred to it as that, btw. Yes, they're both black, which helps protect them from the zealots somewhat, but both acknowledged their opposition to the themes of identity politics, intersectionality, white fragility, reparations and the whole idea racism plays a major role in the lives of blacks today, makes them targets for their colleagues. The woke crowd considers the whole notion of black conservatives to be blasphemous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Argus said:

The woke crowd considers the whole notion of black conservatives to be blasphemous.

Just as you consider it impossible to consider there might be progressives who don't give a shit.  This is what you should expect from an ideology that maintains virtually everyone to their left is a communist.

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

These aren't conservatives, they're bandwagon jumpers who never thought about politics before Facebook existed and voice shallow opinions for their own angertainment.

There's now a huge void of thoughtful conservatives that needs to be filled.

Jim Flaherty was Harper's #2 man, and voted for trans rights in the first vote on that issue.  Now THAT is a conservative, someone who cares about rights.

These sputtering globalist-haters are mostly just trolling... There's an 'ignore' feature for that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Just as you consider it impossible to consider there might be progressives who don't give a shit.  This is what you should expect from an ideology that maintains virtually everyone to their left is a communist.

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

That kinda sounds like a knee-jerk characterization.  Come up with something better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's now a huge void of thoughtful conservatives that needs to be filled.

A huge void of a thoughtful alternative is what is needed for the average tax payer.

The hypocrisy of conservatives and the identity politics of the liberals is off the rails.

A strong libertarian movement is needed in this country to tell people like yourself that you only speak for yourself and you have no legitimacy to advise people what is right and wrong. 

Harper & Scheer, first one in my opinion damaged the idea of a neutral Canada in the world and the second one forgot he had a dual citenzship. This is who your party is and you are surprised why both the left and the right hold their nose when they see a blue Conservative sign.

What a deal Donald would have made if Scheer was PM, in a way is good Trudeau is there and maintains a certain neutrality in the international scene which for a Canadian like myself is something that I am proud of.

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

These aren't conservatives, they're bandwagon jumpers who never thought about politics before Facebook existed and voice shallow opinions for their own angertainment.

There's now a huge void of thoughtful conservatives that needs to be filled.

Jim Flaherty was Harper's #2 man, and voted for trans rights in the first vote on that issue.  Now THAT is a conservative, someone who cares about rights.

These sputtering globalist-haters are mostly just trolling... There's an 'ignore' feature for that.

 

I admit to having anti-globalist notions but that doesn't make me anything like what you describe above. And at first I thought you were talking about liberals. Replace "conservatives" above with that, it still works.

Same goes for outright painting everyone on the other side the same colour. You're a right winger? So you're a fascist, a racist, misogynist climate denier and virus spreader.

You people are a joke. Pot, meet thy sanctimonious kettle... :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

A strong libertarian movement is needed in this country to tell people like yourself that you only speak for yourself and you have no legitimacy to tell people what is right and wrong.

Now here is a great idea. In other words, tell people to mind their own business. In fact... that is a Canadian tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. I admit to having anti-globalist notions but that doesn't make me anything like what you describe above.

2. And at first I thought you were talking about liberals. Replace "conservatives" above with that, it still works.

3. Same goes for outright painting everyone on the other side the same colour. You're a right winger? So you're a fascist, a racist, misogynist climate denier and virus spreader.

4. You people are a joke. Pot, meet thy sanctimonious kettle... :rolleyes:

1. I wasn't thinking about you.

2. Not at all, read my post again.  It's about people who jump on the bandwagon and eventually change the identity of the group.

3. That's my point.  The band wagon jumpers bring disrepute and taint a sound philosophy.

4. Who are?  You seem to have missed the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I wasn't thinking about you.

2. Not at all, read my post again.  It's about people who jump on the bandwagon and eventually change the identity of the group.

3. That's my point.  The band wagon jumpers bring disrepute and taint a sound philosophy.

4. Who are?  You seem to have missed the point.

Yes, my point exactly. It's all just a big misunderstanding!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You seem to have missed the point.

Not really. My point just stands on its own. They way we characterize people now has literally become a binary choice. For example, Liberals - Good people, Conservatives - bad people. This is what happens when politics gets poisoned, by so-called moralic acid.

It does not help when other people play that role themselves on purpose, becoming a charicature but if it is a theatre play and we all know that, then all is well. We do need to be reminded of it sometimes though.

In today's media the reality went into TV, and TV has became our reality, and now the play has broken out of the bounds of theatre, gone off the stage. Meanwhile reality is found on our screens, live streaming, and truth derived by web search engines.

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. For example, Liberals - Good people, Conservatives - bad people. This is what happens when politics gets poisoned,

2. by so-called moralic acid.

3. In today's media the reality went into TV, and TV has became our reality, and now the play has broken out of the bounds of theatre

1. It's wider than that, but still ridiculous.

2. Never heard of that term.

3. Sure.  Maybe another way to look at it, is that the system was not designed for:

- universal suffrage

- pervasive and massive government

- Globalism

- Mass media

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

They way we characterize people now has literally become a binary choice. For example, Liberals - Good people, Conservatives - bad people. This is what happens when politics gets poisoned, by so-called moralic acid.

Moralic acid dissolves society so we need a moralic catalyst that binds it together instead.  I've suggested an end to official secrecy in the public's domain but apparently that makes me a commie/fascist/authoritarian who is lying that actually wants to increase secrecy in the public domain.  This isn't just simple mischaracterization it's a stupid wilful determination to be contrary for the sake of contrariness.

I don't know, maybe if I was an overtly obvious conservative that was pushing this idea it would get more traction.  One of the most overtly conservative people I know who ran for municipal office hereabouts campaigned on the idea. He lost but not by much. We disagree on virtually everything else and I'd vote for him if I could but I live outside the municipality so...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Just as you consider it impossible to consider there might be progressives who don't give a shit.  This is what you should expect from an ideology that maintains virtually everyone to their left is a communist.

A forget her name, but there was a woman on a panel once, discussing Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism who was confronted by a Muslim who pointed out only a percentage of Muslims were like that. The woman on the panel pointed out that only a percentage of Germans were Nazis in the 30s and 40s. The rest, though, pretty much shrugged and went along with them. So it really didn't matter a damn that they might not be as wholeheartedly enthusiastic about their agenda. The same goes with any group. It's the leadership which matters, and th leadership on the Left is heading towards all-out identity politics.

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Conservatives need to come up with something better than knee-jerk characterizations to argue against progressives.

Pot - kettle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Pot - kettle.

 

Kettle - Pot

image.jpeg.ef8f15d5687ae887ed1a70b2a4ec302f.jpeg

"It is obvious to the most simple-minded that Lokai is of an inferior breed."
"The obvious visual evidence, Commissioner, is that he is of the same breed as yourself."
"Are you blind, Commander Spock? Well, look at me! Look at me!"
"You're black on one side and white on the other."
"I am black on the right side."
"I fail to see the significant difference."
"Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

These aren't conservatives, they're bandwagon jumpers who never thought about politics before Facebook existed and voice shallow opinions for their own angertainment.

Seriously? I've been a conservative on this site for sixteen years now.  Thomas Sowell is 90 and has been a conservative all his life? Glen Loury and John McWhorter aren't conservatives? Coleman Hughes isn't a conservative? Nor Larry Elder? These are all black American intellectuals and none of them have any time for your religiously inspired identity politics.

Quote

Jim Flaherty was Harper's #2 man, and voted for trans rights in the first vote on that issue.  Now THAT is a conservative, someone who cares about rights.

Yes, to the far Left a conservative is one who never acts like a conservative. That just shows the depths of intolerance and hate they hold for anyone who has views to their right.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Seriously? I've been a conservative on this site for sixteen years now.   

2. Yes, to the far Left a conservative is one who never acts like a conservative. That just shows the depths of intolerance and hate they hold for anyone who has views to their right.

1. So what?  I'm not talking about you.

2. Flaherty wasn't conservative?  Wow.  The idea that I hold intolerance and hate is a laughable lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

A strong libertarian movement is needed in this country to tell people like yourself that you only speak for yourself and you have no legitimacy to advise people what is right and wrong. 

Harper & Scheer, first one in my opinion damaged the idea of a neutral Canada in the world and the second one forgot he had a dual citenzship. This is who your party is and you are surprised why both the left and the right hold their nose when they see a blue Conservative sign.

What a deal Donald would have made if Scheer was PM, in a way is good Trudeau is there and maintains a certain neutrality in the international scene which for a Canadian like myself is something that I am proud of.

Thats really rich, the left has been screaming at the top of their lungs and telling "everyone" what is right or wrong, or face the consequences, like loss of jobs, wages way of life, a total collapse of life as they once knew it....These topics are off limits period , they dare you to try and talk about them, and when you do, their full wrath comes down on you...The right is getting tired of being shoved in a corner and told to STFU...

Neutrality really, Justin has been the most divisive PM in a long time, he has driven huge divides between, western Canada, native issues, our resource sector, our infra structure sector, the last slap in the face we are now systemic racists all of us, not to mention all the scandals, ethic commission visits How in the blue balls has he been neutral....you must mean on China where 2 Canadians have languished in a communist prison for over a year, or maybe how Saudi's treated our nation for a comment....neutral meaning he did not do anything........

And don't act like Justin is Canada's savior when it comes to NAFTA, and while he did not give away the house, he comprised on a few matters, but Canada did not come out the winner, it was Trump....i want a PM that is going to strand up for all of us, not just a Quebec company, or having countries treat us like the 3 world nation, imposing sanction's when they like, with no consequences ... afraid to speak up for fear of what they would do next....we want Sofia to take Justins balls out of her purse and show some leadership....We have not had someone with some leadership in a long time, and yes I will include the conservative side of the house, but lets not pretend Justin is our savior....because he is the opposite....i hope and pray that Justins rule ends very soon, and Canada moves into the next stage of recovery...

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So what?  I'm not talking about you.

You specifically replied to someone who WAS. If you weren't referencing me then my mistake. If you were referencing all the people I quoted - again in the post Eye was talking about, then that's just nuts.

Quote

2. Flaherty wasn't conservative?  Wow.  The idea that I hold intolerance and hate is a laughable lie.

The idea you're a conservative is certainly laughable.

The idea that the transgender issue is 'settled' when so little is understood about it is laughable. The idea that pre-pubescent children should be given drugs because they 'feel like a girl' when we KNOW that most feelings in young people either go away or translate into them being gay is not laughable, it's outrageous. The idea that male-bodied people who say they are women should be competing against women in physical contests is ridiculous. As is sending them to womens prisons. As is making it a law you have to refer to them as women or face government retribution.

Even most trans people don't believe in all the crap activists are pushing. They just want to be left alone.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

A huge void of a thoughtful alternative is what is needed for the average tax payer.

Truth in media is in short supply, most taxpayers are too dumb to know they're being lied to, now we have Trudeau.

Quote

The hypocrisy of conservatives and the identity politics of the liberals is off the rails.

Hypocrisy is a leftist phenomenon. "ALL WOMEN MUST BE BELIEVED, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE TELLING A FEW LIES!!!!! Except for those bitches with the evidence, just ignore them."

What's your reason for characterizing Conservatives as hypocrits? 

Quote

A strong libertarian movement is needed in this country to tell people like yourself that you only speak for yourself and you have no legitimacy to advise people what is right and wrong. 

Ugh.

Quote

Harper & Scheer, first one in my opinion damaged the idea of a neutral Canada in the world and the second one forgot he had a dual citenzship. This is who your party is and you are surprised why both the left and the right hold their nose when they see a blue Conservative sign.

Who said Canada was neutral? 

OK so we had a dual citizen, that's still better than a fake Canadian with an islamic state flag.

I don't hold my nose when I see Liberals, I hold off. 

Quote

What a deal Donald would have made if Scheer was PM, in a way is good Trudeau is there and maintains a certain neutrality in the international scene which for a Canadian like myself is something that I am proud of.

Trudeau isn't neutral.

Refusing to fight islamic state wasn't neutral. Re-Branding their terrorists as 'fighters' wasn't neutral. Refusing to stand up to islamic hate rallies isn't neutral. Denying islamic state's genocide wasn't neutral. Falsely accusing Canadians of genocide wasn't neutral. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens because a known-criminal used some illegally purchased guns wasn't neutral. 

Trudeau is a hideous pice of shit.

Canadians are now openly protesting him and the media ignores it. We just had our first real attempt at an attack on our government from a Canadian-born citizen. Separatism in Quebec and the west, which was almost non-existent 5 years ago, is rampant now. Our relationships with the US, India, China, and Japan are at an all-time low. Our budget has been a massive disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Did you read the full judgment?  It's something like 26 pages u think ?

No, and I don't suppose you did either?  While they're usually written in plain language, the full 26 pages is meant for lawyers and legal scholars, particularly in a precedent-setting case like this one.  Forstater's tweets (the subject of the case) are an easier chew.

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Not at all.  Peterson was against 'forced speech' meaning the government forces you to say a word.  He wasn't denying the womanhood of trans women.  Further to that, he said he might use requested pronouns depending on how it was asked of him.

and Forstater was against being forced to change her definition of woman - or being forced to say the word in a way she disagreed with.  The distinction you're drawing here is pretty weak.  Forstater explained that she accepts gender identity, but that it doesn't override biological sex.  You speak of trans women "womanhood" as something taboo to talk about, debate or disagree with, and that's the problem.  The topic is declared closed and anyone who doesn't just fall in line is automatically considered "hateful" and essentially excommunicato.  

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Censorship occurs when the government disallows you from saying something - not counting hate speech.  You can be fired for saying something merely distasteful, and that is not censorship.

That's an incorrectly narrow definition of censorship.  It's far more broad than that.  While I agree that you can be fired for being rude/distasteful, that in itself can be a form of censorship.  If standards were applied more equitably, I'd not be complaining.  Where I do feel our institutions are failing us (on a academic, cultural and political level) is the both the draconian enforcement of the new language "laws" against those who question them , and then the blind pass their critics get when they bully, threaten and shout their opposition into silence.  

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I can see why you think that.  At the point where a group is declared as protected from discrimination, the debate starts to close and we move on. In 1965, people who were still expressing support for segregation started experiencing reactions for their views.  This is what we're seeing here.

This is not the same thing at all.  Unlike the black civil rights, women's rights, homosexual rights, transgender activists are redefining the use of words that others were already using to describe themselves.  

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. Ok, so for this I am lacking a good answer.  I would say that a good debate includes folks with authority, and a clear purpose to progress a question.  That's off the top of my head.

8. If you have a response to my point #7, maybe we could discover something together.

There's zero possibility for debate until there's a safe environment for it.  You can't say you want to see that debate if you're also supporting the behavior that makes it impossible to happen.  

That means we need an environment where people aren't instantly attacked, de-funded and de-platformed for presenting dissenting viewpoints.  It means disciplining and de-platforming the more inflammatory and militant among the activists as well, like professors who make accusations of transphobia when presented with anything but meek acquiescence to conclusions, or who try to censor people like Lindsay Shepherd for basically nothing.  It's one thing to censor a deliberately inflammatory or egregiously ignorant mouthpiece, but what we're seeing today is absurd.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...