The witchhunt continues...

[ImmortalFlame]

Interesting that any deviation from the approved script is countered with cries of bigotry and phobia

Sure, just like those people who are accused of antisemitism just for "deviating from the script" that Jews AREN'T enacting a global conspiracy, right?

Deal with the actual argument. Don't hide behind innuendo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting that any deviation from the approved script is countered with cries of bigotry and phobia

No, it is merely fact. Your post is rather like saying "interesting that gravity makes things fall down and not sideways".

 

[YmirGF]

*guffaw snort*


Those weren't typos.

Aside from the fact that not so long ago the person identified as just that. We are supposed to get amnesia over that part, I suppose. And... given the rate that the person has changed their identity over the last few years can we really expect this drama to end here? What's next for Dylan? At the current rate this person should be changing their identity again in a few months? What is next for this Incarnation of Superficiality?

 

[icehorse]

Exactly: Repeated, deliberate misgendering may be considered harassment (as it should be whether the target is transgender or cisgender, in my opinion), but being sent to jail for it is an entirely different story, and there hasn't been a single recorded case in Canada where someone was jailed for, say, misgendering a coworker or student since Bill C-16 passed in 2017.

Yet. The keyword is "yet". A large portion what lawyers and judges do is deal with new edge cases. People are always trying to push the boundaries. The fact that a legal thing hasn't happened "yet" is mostly meaningless. Sooner of later C-16 is going to have some bad consequences for free speech, even if it hasn't happened "yet".

 

[icehorse]

No, it is merely fact. Your post is rather like saying "interesting that gravity makes things fall down and not sideways".

Sure, some people are bigoted or have phobias. But it is NOT a fact that disagreeing with the more radical aspects of trans agendas makes one a bigot or means one is phobic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yet. The keyword is "yet". A large portion what lawyers and judges do is deal with new edge cases. People are always trying to push the boundaries. The fact that a legal thing hasn't happened "yet" is mostly meaningless. Sooner of later C-16 is going to have some bad consequences for free speech, even if it hasn't happened "yet".

I see no reason to believe that Bill C-16 will result in different treatment for deliberate, repeated harassment targeting trans people compared to forms thereof that target other groups.

It seems to me a pretty reasonable and necessary bill. Canada is also still one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world.

 

[icehorse]

Sure, just like those people who are accused of antisemitism just for "deviating from the script" that Jews AREN'T enacting a global conspiracy, right?

Deal with the actual argument. Don't hide behind innuendo.

Can you restate that example? I'm finding the layers of explicit or implied "nots" difficult to parse, thanks.

 

[icehorse]

I see no reason to believe that Bill C-16 will result in different treatment for deliberate, repeated harassment targeting trans people compared to forms thereof that target other groups.

It seems to me a pretty reasonable and necessary bill. Canada is also still one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world.

Well I don't wish for free speech to be abridged, so I hope you're right. But my intuition is that it will backfire sooner rather than later. Only time will tell, sigh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, some people are bigoted or have phobias. But it is NOT a fact that disagreeing with the more radical aspects of trans agendas makes one a bigot or means one is phobic.

What "agendas"? The only ones that I know of are ones involving equal rights.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well I don't wish for free speech to be abridged, so I hope you're right. But my intuition is that it will backfire sooner rather than later. Only time will tell, sigh.

Deliberate, repeated harassment of any specific group in professional and academic settings isn't considered "free speech" in any developed country that I know of.

 

[icehorse]

Deliberate, repeated harassment of any specific group in professional and academic settings isn't considered "free speech" in any developed country that I know of.

yet.

but one little, teeny-tiny incursion at a time.

for example, what's considered "harassment"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you restate that example? I'm finding the layers of explicit or implied "nots" difficult to parse, thanks.

Sure.

Your argument is based on false equivocation, by alleging that any instances of alleged bigotry are somehow unjustified. You make no attempt to parse justified from unjustified allegations of bigotry, or explain what may comprise both, you simply dismiss all claims of bigotry as being instances of people being chastised for "deviating from the script".

Thus, you avoid making an argument as to WHY certain allegations of bigotry may not be justified, and instead just get to paint them all with the same brush. Yet, by the same logic, you can dismiss literally ALL bigotry, including genuine bigotry.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

yet.

but one little, teeny-tiny incursion at a time.

Ah, the classic "nothing negative has resulted from this... bit it WILL" argument.

In other words, the argument that has no actual evidence, but asserts the existence of hypothetical "future" evidence.

for example, what's considered "harassment"?

One example would be: Repeatedly and knowingly calling someone a term, name or moniker that upsets, belittles or offends them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

yet.

but one little, teeny-tiny incursion at a time.

I'm not really interested in ideological fearmongering as promulgated by the likes of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. In terms of concrete evidence and real-world cases, none of that has happened in Canada as a result of the bill.

for example, what's considered "harassment"?

That's too broad of a question. In the specific case of pronoun usage, it would be deliberate and repeated misgendering of a person, be they cis or trans.

 

[YmirGF]

Sure, some people are bigoted or have phobias. But it is NOT a fact that disagreeing with the more radical aspects of trans agendas makes one a bigot or means one is phobic.

I think that this is where the narrative is being lost too. There is this inherent disingenuousness in the entire argument, imho. The term "gaslighting" comes to mind. Telling people one seeks to influence that they are bigotted for not agreeing with one's position is problably not the best marketing ploy in how to win friends and influence people. The other thing that just stands out is the level of certainty that those on the pro-transgender ideology side exhibit. It's like this is a "settled science". But, from their perspective, I guess it is settled.

 

[YmirGF]

I see no reason to believe that Bill C-16 will result in different treatment for deliberate, repeated harassment targeting trans people compared to forms thereof that target other groups.

It seems to me a pretty reasonable and necessary bill. Canada is also still one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world.

Necessary? No one has been charged in 6 years. It's a solution to a non-existent problem. The numbers do not lie.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Necessary? No one has been charged in 6 years. It's a solution to a non-existent problem. The numbers do not lie.

The bill, from what I've read, brings protections for trans people in line with those for other groups in housing, the workplace, and multiple other settings. It's not limited to prevention of harassment, and I doubt that most cases of harassment that the bill may have resolved required charges (if you're referring to a criminal charge).

 

[Viker]

What "agendas"? The only ones that I know of are ones involving equal rights.

That's the real problem at hand. How dare we desire, expect or even demand (sometimes) that we get equal treatment under the law? We truly are evil just for that!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sure, some people are bigoted or have phobias. But it is NOT a fact that disagreeing with the more radical aspects of trans agendas makes one a bigot or means one is phobic.

Sometimes those labels are accurate. It's not difficult to identify bigotry and distinguish it from other things. It's not always hateful, but it is always irrational and destructive to members of a law-abiding demographic.

But sometimes, the words are used carelessly. I've been called an anti-Christian bigot, but that is incorrect. For starters, my objection is to organized, politicized Christianity, not people. Bigotry is directed against people, not ideas. Also, my objection, which also goes by the name antitheism, is rational and harms nobody. Mine is a constructive position based in evidence.

Telling people one seeks to influence that they are bigotted for not agreeing with one's position is problably not the best marketing ploy in how to win friends and influence people.

I don't expect to impact such people with anything but social stigma. Appealing to a bigot's innate kindness and sense of fairness is ineffective. You need to give him a reason that means something to him like public shaming to change his behavior. So, the effort should not be to make nice with the bigot, but to encourage others to push back when they see bigotry and making it uncomfortable for him.

This is good strategy for a variety of topics, where people with deep-seated bigotries just can't be talked to.

Those weren't typos.

Agreed. I nearly commented when I read that claim, but felt like it might be understood as pedantic. I like discussions on the proper use of language, but plenty of people are put off by them.

Since you answered, I'll elaborate anyway. The word typo is sometimes used to mean any written error, but it's actually a specific one - making a mechanical error when typing and inadvertently changing, adding, or omitting a character by missing a key or hitting a wrong one. Somebody recently referred to Barrett on the Court as Bassett and called it a typo. It wasn't. It was a different kind of mistake.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Every member of every court (like all humans) changes his or her mind from time to time. After all, they all answered in their Senate confirmation hearings that it was their opinion that Roe v Wade was "settled law" and would uphold stare decisis should that come before them. Thomas, having brought it up in his concurring opinion, has opened that door, and such cases will soon -- with certainty -- be before the court.

And currently all but one justice does not agree with the statements. To say justices can change their minds, well that can be said for any issue brought before the court.