1. Hello and welcome to the brand new home for PlayDota!
    Please read through our Welcome thread to see what's new!
    Dismiss Notice

Social Justice Debates

Discussion in 'World News & Debate' started by Blarrg, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Yes, they can. Once again, you're following your protocol. You know all those Hollywood stars who refuse to identify sexual predators? None of their opinions matter at all either? :D This is exactly my point. It doesn't matter who says something. The content of what they're saying is what matters, and how they defend their opinion. Everything else is irrelevant. If Hitler says global warming is real, is global warming suddenly not real because Hitler said it? Someone who is responsible for the genocide of millions of people certainly cannot say what is detrimental so society and what is not, right?

    This is where you fail to argue, hard. You can't separate the argument from the person. You can't separate the person from their identity. Nobody is an individual to you and if you do X then you must be part of group Y. This kind of thinking is how society crumbles.

    Your argument of us being wrong is "the law passed and nothing bad has happened yet." Its meaningless. I'm sure you wouldn't say the same thing about anything a right-wing politician would pass.

    Why are you repeating what I said? He doesn't NEED to. But if he can't find actual examples that support his stance then he probably should instead of assuming.

    In general, I respect people. There are a few exceptions though... those who misrepresent me (you+enrico+others), and those who have already flamed me before (leadblast XD). Of course, most of my "flaming" toward you and enrico isn't even flame. Its merely calling you out on bullshit. If you want to call it flame, be my guest. However, you should be aware that the words hold a bit more meaning than just me attacking you. Did you ever stop to think that you do misrepresent people when you argue? Probably not, you are too busy being offended because I "attacked" you.

    Overall, on the internet, I am an asshole, I won't deny it, but I also don't care. There are much worse things than that in the world, especially on the internet. Constant misrepresentation of people is much more harmful than personal attacks in a debate environment.

    I didn't. I actually explained my argument, then used an analogy in hopes you would maybe understand it more clearly. Didn't work obviously. :cat:

    Its not condoning violence to be against the taboo that its socially unacceptable to hit a women under "any" circumstance. This conversation has already happened.



    No. A taboo by definition is nothing but a harmful thing in society. They are inherently bad.

    How?

    Don't say, "Law was implemented and nothing bad has happened in 6 months."

    Half the article contains the explanation? Color me surprised. Once again, read the first three paragraphs of the article. It outlines exactly what the article is about. It is not about his book. Just because his main citation is a book doesn't mean that it is about the book. If it was about the book, he wouldn't be talking about things outside the book. The overarching point of the article is more than you are seeing. I've already explained exactly what the article is about. I read the entire thing, I would know. Don't know if you have.

    So now its not about his book and its about his meddling in topics he does not understand?

    Read my post more carefully and you'll see that my description of his point encompasses both of these things and is a far better explanation of the article.

    Ya great. Embellishment. Already brought this up in my previous post.

    My support comes in the form of a vote and voicing my opinion on whatever platform I choose to voice it on. I don't judge people on the color of their skin, their sex, their religion, or anything. I judge those by their actions and how they reason their thinking. I support things that also judge by actions and reasons for thinking. Whether that is a law, or a movement, doesn't matter.

    That is how equality works. You don't think of people as a part of a group, you think of them as an individual.

    My support of equality is not supporting bills that police language and unscientific bullshit. You, however, will throw science out the window if it means protecting the feelings of someone.
     
  2. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    5,241
    485
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    Reporting it =/= deciding to keep identity of sexual predators a secret AND claiming its OK to have boys have relationship with priests. If you don't want to report it, then just don't. Don't condone pedophilia.
     
  3. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    5,241
    485
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    I would take their opinion with a grain of salt when it comes to morals when they do something like that. And when they provide no proof (Milo and proof generally don't go in same sentence) there is every reason to doubt them. Tell me a good point about Milo other than his arg

    This is where you fail to argue, hard. You can't separate the argument from the person. You can't separate the person from their identity. Nobody is an individual to you and if you do X then you must be part of group Y. This kind of thinking is how society crumbles.

    Its not just nothing bad has happened. I discussed this extensively with ManOnTheCan. The criminal code of Canadian law was not amended by this law, only human rights section. Meaning nothing bad can actually happen, because you cannot be called a criminal by this law alone. You would have to advocate genocide, public incitement to breach peace and willful hatred in relation to transsexuals to get in trouble, and these acts are already a crime without being related to transsexuals in any shape or form.

    As for what law I'd support, it would depend on the law and not the political party. I am literally "working" for a center-right political party (VVD), even if its a small job, there are plenty of left wing parties to choose if I wanted. I'm more concerned about certain issues such as human rights than who pays more taxes and similar issues left and right bicker about.

    The images and their explanations are in fact the examples. It goes for like 7 paragraphs full of examples.

    I'm not offended, but its scaring away the little people we have, if it has not already.

    "Under any circumstance" is not literal. There are female assassins out there, are you suppose to "not hit them" when they try to kill you? Practically it means the man should not hit a woman if the woman does not mean him physical harm. That is what the taboo is about. And because this always entails violence, the analogy failed to show how being against physical harm against women taboo is same as something you do in comfort of your privacy.

    Religious taboos? Probably. Moral taboos? Not so much. Things like incest and cannibalism are taboo and not illegal in many countries. They should remain a taboo.


    There is of course the issue of what will count as "discrimination". Its the same for all offenses, whether based on skin color, orientation or gender. Its Genocide (or advocating it), Public incitement likely to lead to beach of peace or willful promotion of hatred. Unless you do one of these things in form of gender discrimination, you will be fine.

    The facts that are presently in the criminal code are the same , the law only adds to causes of that. The method in which you can discriminate is the same, just more categories are added. If your using of wrong pronoun or discrimination against transsexual involves or in anyway is connected to genocide, public incitement or willful promotion of hatred, then yes. You will be jailed and fined. And you should be.

    As for the changes to human rights section, remember that you need to enter federal level for this law to take an effect. Even there, you are not compelled to say anything. Using the person's name or the pronoun "They" will always work. Not to mention based on where you are, there are more words you can use. Like "The witness", "Defense" if you are in the court. And on federal level, its generally the norm to introduce everyone and in this case you will always know whether someone is transsexual or not. Overall this is like a drop in the ocean when it comes to all the rules and regulations we have to adhere to on federal level.

    This is not different than changing your name. Surely if you changed your name, people would have enough respect to call you by your new name. The reason there are no laws for that is because people who change their name are not in need of protection like transsexual people who are already very fragile because of their mental state and other problems they face in society other than identity.

    If there was absolute requirement to use a certain pronoun on every level, do you really think this law would pass?

    Yes, the article wants to analyze how Peterson got famous. But I don't care about that, and clearly you don't too. We went to his book because it was also another example of him having bad arguments, so the legal ones are not the only one. Law is all about reading texts and defining them. He never really did that with this new law. Instead opted to talk, in unneeded long length, about ideologies and what might happen.

    It was always about that. The point was that apart from his university lectures and classroom teaching he is not making much sense and he is talking about numerous fields at the same time when he clearly does not have the knowledge about them.

    You should really read about his chaos dragon theory. :cat:

    But its not helping anyone, anywhere. No problem in the world went away by writing a kindly worded letter. We must act wisely, but act. That's the only way something can be achieved. After Trump's fiasco with transsexual soldiers and kicking them out after their faithful service and various other problems, it was clear that this is a human rights issue and protections are needed to be put in place, like the race issues.

    Our language is already policed on federal level, extensively. You are required to behave yourself and this law is insignificant in face of others you have to follow once in federal jurisdiction.

    Not to mention it being unscientific is debatable. This is all about the none-binary gender science supports. We know that males can feel like females and vice versa. Its a mental dysphoria, but its recognized by science. Intersex is also a recognized condition scientifically. Now intersex can easily be limited to mental state as well. But claiming there are X numbers of genders and other shenanigans is simply false.
     
    frigidsoul likes this.
  4. Eli_Green

    Eli_Green Member

    8,363
    2,350
    113
    Oct 29, 2013
    Here's some quick thoughts I had recently.

    Assuming there exists groups X, Y, and Z where X is a small group, Y is a small group, and Z is the remaining population: all living in a country where individuals are considered equal in the eyes of the law.

    In this case giving X group rights due to transgressions by Y can have similar marginalizing effects as taking away rights from group X due to Y (in this case Y being in a position to enact these changes).

    The inequality is not explicitly stated in the former case; but it's still there.

    I believe also that the former case can lead to further transgressions against group X; in particular it may upset members of group Z - who would prefer the governing body to focus on different issues than what is happening between X and Y - enough for them to join Y, reinforcing the need for X to be protected (which could theoretically escalate further should the governing body deem more protections are in order.)
     
  5. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    4,527
    454
    83
    Aug 18, 2013
    In this case "group X" isn't even well-defined. If you look at the Ontario Human Rights Commission's definition of "gender expression" it includes basically everything someone does, including dress, talk, etc.

    Which is extremely problematic from a legal perspective.

    Apparently to be a professor you don't need to have any novel ideas and you can randomly type words to get funding. At least according to @enrico :cat:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2018
  6. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    That is essentially what managers at tech companies do.

    You can basically just take a handful of these words and put them in a sentence. In large companies, MD's do this constantly, in startups, the CEOs do it constantly. As a developer, trying to understand what they actually want is a puzzle on its own. Half the words don't mean what they think they mean and sometimes even completely contradictory. But hey, if your pitch doesn't sound cool enough you don't get funding, regardless of how important something can be.
     
    ManOnTheCan likes this.
  7. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,712
    226
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
    Last week I flew to Yelp HQ for an interview, and all their bathrooms are mixed gender.

    It's kind of funny to watch these conservative states arguing about "bathroom bills" with frothing mouths, and then some company like Yelp willy-nilly makes all gender bathrooms and no one bats an eye. xd

    PS: However, some of the bathrooms at Yelp HQ still have urinals, which could be weird for some people, but then again, there are public urinals in Paris, and in the US people are pretty uptight about these things... Surprised they haven't redesigned them because I have been to other all gender bathroom places, and they actually remodeled bathrooms completely (floor to ceiling walls between stalls, so that nobody can creep on you).
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  8. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,806
    449
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    Actually they can't even say anything - legally speaking -
    if you have two bathrooms specified for Men and Women then you exclude every other possibility including handicapped people (whatever form they are in).

    But if you make one unspecified bathroom, then everyone can enter and no one is excluded, no place to complain, because if some group want their exclusive bathroom that will be an additional benefit to their group and not what everyone else is having.
     
  9. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    4,527
    454
    83
    Aug 18, 2013
    Neat. When I studied in Canada we had co-ed showers. Highly recommended.
     
    kamukag3e likes this.
  10. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,806
    449
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    @ManOnTheCan:
    Until the moment they company is owned by oppressive sexist ... and most importantly hire only males.
     
  11. HHHNNNGGG

    HHHNNNGGG Member

    17,857
    463
    83
    Sep 21, 2010
    Remember that most daily life tools are designed for right-handed people and many lefties get wounded or killed every year in accidents using those tools.

    Are lefties being oppressed? Should we ask for reparation for lefties? As a right-handed person, should I feel sorry for systematically oppressing left-handed people by using right-handed tools as a promotion of oppression?

    EDIT: Thinking so, I used my left hand for the most important job of all guys. Surely it is not my preference, but rather my way to pay reparation!
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2018
    lovestep and kamukag3e like this.
  12. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator Staff Member

    7,818
    213
    63
    Aug 15, 2013




    Some very interesting TED talks on gender/race issues.
     
    lovestep likes this.
  13. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    2,559
    562
    113
    Dec 16, 2013
    Thats also how they behave.
    Warning! Like the title says, you cannot unsee this! Watch at your own risk!
     
  14. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    1,763
    75
    48
    Dec 9, 2012
    I forgot how awesome this guy's channel is sometimes.

    I love that one at around 2:40. "It's difficult being sexy in specific places without being sexualised". The fuck do you think being sexy means? I know she probably means being treated badly by assholes but holy shit man. It's like a bouncer saying it sucks that him being huge and looking like he can beat the shit out of you makes people intimidated by you.

    The part right in the beginning where the woman says it is a place where they can recognise that they are angry reminded me of a senseless thing the modern feminism movement does sometimes. Want to show the world that women have a certain view/emotion/capable of a certain thing. Yeah all sensible people know that. People are fully aware that women are capable of achieving things. You are the only ones who think it needs to be shown to the world.

    One thing though, the removal of grid girls in F1 received quite a bit of media coverage. I wouldn't say massive amounts but actually more than I thought it would. And it is one case where I really don't think it was based solely on stupid reasons.
     
  15. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    2,559
    562
    113
    Dec 16, 2013
    Why wouldn't they know ? That's not what incognito mode does.
    Just putting it out there in case some almost a computer scientist doesn't know that.
    Before you try to climb a mountain, try stepping on this tini-tiny pebble,...
    ...who thinks that you are a little white privileged male, and try to reason with him first.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  16. Eli_Green

    Eli_Green Member

    8,363
    2,350
    113
    Oct 29, 2013
    Gotta cut costs somewhere :cat:
     
  17. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009

    Boss: How can we start cutting costs and virtue signal?

    Dude: Fire all the grid girls and say its for feminism
     
  18. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
  19. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    2,559
    562
    113
    Dec 16, 2013
    Recently, MILO Yanapanawhatever went directly to the source of his internet presence problems at Google's Austin, Texas headquarters, to ask them why are his basic human and constitution given rights denied and why there is no justice for him on social media and censorship in general.

    Whats also worth mentioning in this serious but also, hilarious video, is how Google employee shook Alexander's hand but refused to shakes MILO's hand and left him hanging with a hand in the air. Don't know about you, but looks like Google got some homophobes working for them. Hopefully, this is good enough for virtue signaling people to use, to show their moral correctness.
     
  20. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    4,527
    454
    83
    Aug 18, 2013
    Yeah, looks like Google really needs to do something about its homophobia problem.