last time I checked the guy doesnt even have a problem calling people by there pronouns, he said he may or may not use peoples pronouns depending on how they ask him. so he's basically saying if your gonna be rude to me im gonna be rude to you

wait how many times do you use pronouns OTHER than "you" when talking to someone?

do people regularly refer to someone they're talking to in the 3rd person?

i guess in a group conversation you might be like "x, he's a cool guy" but that still feels really awkward

and if you're angry because i use the wrong pronoun to describe someone who isn't even in the conversation then i don't know what to say

It also has to do with use of said pronouns in contracts or business dealings. EG. If you go to a school and the school does not have your preferred pronoun as a option to use on the legal documents you can theoretically sue them for discrimination. And that is where this law get ridiculous, the law is no longer stating what cannot be said (in a racist or inflammatory matter) but it is stating what you must say for fear of upsetting someone. That is where the real issue with it is. As I said before, having laws in place to keep you from saying x or y to curtail hate is fine and needed. Having laws that tell you what to say on the other had is not. Its the difference between getting in trouble because you didn't hand in homework VS getting in trouble for handing in the homework, but its on a blue sheet of paper instead of green. Regardless of how correct the work is on the paper, or what you have done to get it in you are punished not because you didn't do it but because you didn't do it the preferred way. That't how preschool works not the real world.

u realize germany didn't spring into existence with the THIRD reich, right?

Your argument here is that its dumb to get punished for not following directions, rather than trying to point out the actual flaws in the bill.

all queer people I know only go as far as to use "they"... not being called a plant-human or something. I don't think that's too hard to respect, especially since you can default to it if you're unsure of someone's pronouns

it's possible to think that both criminalizing incorrect speech is wrong and that this guy is a blowhard not worth paying attention to. you guys don't have to immediately latch on to every half-baked loudmouth who offers even the slightest resistance to """identity politics""".

all the overblown reaction to college liberals is such a waste of time—tumblr teens have no power over anyone but other tumblr teens. save your energy for more worthy causes.

they do have power considering some colleges and university require professors to give trigger warning, law students dont wanna learn about handling rape cases http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law
they have power

Everything you have said in this thread personally offends me. Anyone that offends me is hateful and using hate speech, therefore, you must stop speaking your mind and opinion because I have subjectively decided that it harms me.

Now everyone reading what I just said is probably sitting there thinking, "This guy is a fucking idiot," and they are right, its absolute nonsense to just be able to claim some kind of slight because someone said something that you somehow construed as offensive. It is even more nonsensical to try and silence you because you hold a different opinion than me, or because I claim offense.

It's not like Hitler died and all of Germany became what it is today, trying to exclude the existence of Nazism from Germany is like saying America never had slaves, like it or not both had an affect on the country past and present.

Since you don't agree with what Tino has said, where do you think the line should be drawn? What is offensive and what isn't offensive? What is the standard and who decides what the standard is?

I am pretty sure the U.S. only limits free speech when it directly incites violence on someone or a group of people, this could be what you mean, but I wasn't sure. There is a huge difference in not using someone's preferred pronoun and threatening some sort of violence to them because of them identifying as whatever.

>It's not like Hitler died and all of Germany became what it is today, trying to exclude the existence of Nazism from Germany is like saying America never had slaves, like it or not both had an affect on the country past and present.

man you're ACTUALLY retarded if you don't understand that free speech is part of the reason that nazism became powerful and the reason freedom to be a nazi is limited today

>Since you don't agree with what Tino has said, where do you think the line should be drawn? What is offensive and what isn't offensive? What is the standard and who decides what the standard is?

it's a completely arbitrary decision and I don't like using vague definitions with no concrete definition so i dont have an opinion

>There is a huge difference in not using someone's preferred pronoun and threatening some sort of violence to them because of them identifying as whatever.

what difference is there? Is the interpretation of "I'm going to hurt you" less valid than an interpretation of someone rejecting your core identity? This argument only works if you consider one type of threatening language more valid than another or don't consider rejection of someone's identity a threat.

it shouldnt be illegal but you shouldnt disrespect people
its really not that hard to just be respectful to each other

Hitler incited white supremacy through his call to arms against the Jewish people, as well as other minority groups. What Hitler did was 100% without a doubt wrong. While what he did broadly falls under free speech, I thought we both agreed that speech that directly incites violence against a person or group is wrong?

My whole point is that this idea of claiming offense because of someone holding a different opinion than your's is arbitrary. The whole thing is vague! I can claim to be offended by you not using capital letters, you can claim offense at me using capital letters. It's not going to solve any problems just generate more.

What difference is there in an actual threat of physical violence against a person and a person not agreeing with you? I have no clue. Are there different types of threatening language? I know you said you don't like using vague definitions, but if there are different types of threatening language who gets to decide whats threatening language and whats not?

>what difference is there? Is the interpretation of "I'm going to hurt you" less valid than an interpretation of someone rejecting your core identity? This argument only works if you consider one type of threatening language more valid than another or don't consider rejection of someone's identity a threat.

rejecting someones core identity is not violence against them, whenever i decide i don't like someone i am not commiting violence against them by not liking them
your logic is ridiculous

why does this have such few upvotes? what he wrote is literally all that the bill is

you can say whatever you like as long as you agree with me :)

Rejecting someone's identity is a form of dehumanization

if you don't consider that an active threat you're a bad person

(we already know you're a bad person but w/e)

Like are you serious with all of this? What kind of mental disconnect do you have?

Have you take a look at the bill, and the subsequent bills that follow it at a provincial level? They literally don't have a definition at all, the bills themselves are completely arbitrary and decided by each individual person. The fuck kind of law is that?

There is a massive difference between the two and it is really scary that you cannot see that. One causes actual physical harm and possibly death while the other one is a difference in perceptions. This is a difference that literally every single one of the 7 Billion+ people on this planet share. You seeing it slightly differently doesn't make you special in any way shape or form. It makes you normal. People are free to choose what ever fictional title that they want for themselves (this by the way includes the 100% fictional and made up "titles" of He/She) as it doesn't change or effect how society works and plays out. Now on the other hand if you start to say that for some reason this perception of reality is more right then the others that can cause issues, in cases where the majority of people think it is correct it makes sense, but no in this situation its not that majority of the population that thinks this is right its literally 1% or less that sees it this way and thinks everyone else has to be like them. And the punishment for not following that is you get financially fucked over and the cherry on top is that the judge of what is actually correct is not actually a solid line either it varies from each person to each person. That is fucked right sideways when it comes to law making.

So no, rejection of someones "identity" is not a threat because guess what each person has one but I don't give a fuck what it is. If you want to be called a fucking "gender-fluid-but-only-on-every-2nd-thursday-otherwise-i-am-"it"" all the fucking power to you, and you know what i might actually call you that but it is not a right, that is something that you have to earn, much like respect. Because as far as I fucking care you are one of 7 Billion people when we first meet so why are you so special?

/Rant Let the -frags come

@#44

Its what this bill lays groundwork for. This bill itself is actually perfectly reasonable. But the bills that this one feeds into are the ones that are the massive issue. These more troublesome bills are trying to be put in place already on a provincial level and they are very vague and dangerous because of the working and interpretations that can come off of them.

Edit: in regards to 46. That is outright bullshit. One is not equal to the other at all, when you dehumanize someone you take away what it means to be human, you change or makeup definitions to put someone lower then human. Sadly me refusing to use fucking pronouns does not remove or change what it means to be human, if anything asking for all of these special privileges is more dehumanizing because you are purposefully changing the definition of what it means to be human to suit your special needs.

I love using logical fallacies in my logical arguments too

How is it a form of dehumanization? At what point have I made them equal to animals and inanimate objects?
Ignoring the other logical fallacy of, if you don't agree with me you are a bad person, I'll ask the same question that I have asked several times. What is an active threat and who decides what it is?

you continuously try to use personal attacks against people who disagree with you on the forms
continue riding along your high horse you are a saint
i dont think u understand that by your logic if i were to say "i identify as whatever you want" and you dont go out of your way to be nice to me and call me by whatever i want, you are threatening me

laws against free speech are unnecessary there's already a punishment system in place for being an asshole you lose your job, friends etc if people think you're an asshole

if there were a professor so mean and nefarious abusing trans students by going "Why good evening sir" with a gleeful lil smile everyday because he knows they identify as a female you can bet he'd get in shit or even fired, and even if he weren't to get fired people would stop signing up for his class cuz hes an asshole and he'd lose his job that way.

What happens in University's happens everywhere else 5 years later.
What started out as tumblr teens has spread into something which is slightly reminiscent of pre-Soviet Russia and these things move very fast, extremely fast even.

If you've done your homework you would understand how fucking dangerous all this shit is and what it leads to. When people start to deny facts because it might hurt someones feelings it has almost always gone downhill.

the main issue i have with legally enforced preferred pronouns is the possibility that you can be brought to court for discrimination because you withdrew from discourse with someone who cares more about establishing their identity than the original topics brought to the table which had nothing to do with identity in the first place (i.e. any topics that don't revolve around themselves). i think dr. peterson brings up this threat of runaway ideological totalitarianism when he first speaks in OP's video.

thankfully, i don't have to deal with these kinds of retards on a regular basis because my life doesn't revolve around social psychology & liberal arts. i give no fucks about anyone's identity unless it impedes the flow of our discussion (in which case i'll most definitely be an asshole).

How to make make the transgender community widely accepted in what is an already very liberal country:
Make it illegal to use incorrect words describing them
Integration!

Common misconception, they're not banning words they're forcing you to use specific made up ones

What happens in University's happens everywhere else 5 years later.
In a few years this shit, if it goes unchallenged will impede on whatever it is you do. These ideas aren't going to be confined to social psychology & liberal arts for much longer.

Remember when MTV used to be about being an edgy rebellious teen? Now it goes on about how all their white viewers are inherently racist and says that white people have "white fragility" when it comes to talking about race.

i doubt the sentiments of a bunch of underperforming college undergraduates living in an ideological bubble who will either drop out or barely get their associates/bachelors will have widespread consequences, but i understand your frustration. i definitely get annoyed when i see my peers suckered into these sort of debates instead of being productive.

i mean ur an idiot so maybe u'd need some government assistance mate

its already been established that they're not forcing anyone to use certain pronouns. and even if they did, the argument that they're "made up" ignores the fact that these concepts are (to an extent) very real. gender identity is very much a real thing and it makes sense to find words that appropriately describe these peoples' experience. in reality though, what this means is sometimes using a gender neutral pronoun (which is convenient in general as we often talk about people whos gender is unknown). it's really no that major of an infringement on your rights as you making it out to be

These people are becoming: primary and secondary school teachers, journalists, media personalities, political activists, politicians etc.

Schools in NY were making their 6-11 year old white kids feel like bad people just because they are white whilst giving the "ethnic" ones special privileges and free cake/whatever just because they are "ethnic".

This stuff will not be confined to a little bubble. Ideas spread, very quickly.

you can say I was living in a cave for the past few years, but what are this pronouns, it seems like it would hurt transgender people, since their condition can be proven with a brain scan, but all the extra pronouns seem to just serve people that just think they are "unique" or behave differently so they will have a "gender" that better describes them.

another thing, how will it work in different languages and countries?
I doubt that every country will make it mandatory to call someone by their own pronouns so employing such a law in one country might cause problems when people move to different countries because no one will ensure that the people in those countries will use those pronouns.

would be nice to get a response from someone who knows more and can explain it to me.

i think conflating issues regarding implicit identity with those of racism is not only dangerous, but entirely fallacious.

activism against racism and sexism (namely feminism) deal with biases and discrimination against factors of identity that cannot be readily hidden when engaging in discourse. in other words, these forms of activism are concerned about why discourse over non-identity topics are inhibited due to external factors that are readily visible to every participant. this overview is meant to be obvious; these forms of activism need to be rigorously defined so that we can tackle the propriety of activism of preferred pronouns.

unlike skin color & gender, implicit identity, such as "preferred pronouns" and "sexuality", needs to be explicitly introduced into discourse for participants to be aware of it. as long as the laws classifying the acts of discrimination are very narrow and clear (i.e. explicitly harassing someone for identifying, or for assuming they identify, as gay, straight, or feeling empowered by being referred to in a neutral manner), then what goodboy said on the first page is fine.

yet, professional academics and psychologists are still observably arguing over the propriety of the recently instituted discrimination laws, and it's most certainly not because they're bigoted nor because they're trying to dehumanize people (why the fuck would you pursue a PHD if you didn't care about society???). the laws in contention clearly weren't well-vetted nor rigorously peer-reviewed by psychologists; these laws were arguably enacted as a knee-jerk response to a poorly detailed problem. thus, the factors that constitute discrimination against implicit identity must be reevaluated as neutrally & unemotionally as possible.

vagueness in discrimination laws allow those with malicious intentions to derail conversations and/or to force participants to beat around the bush by establishing their implicit identities before being productive (just look at how fucking long the initial speakers took in OP's video before any actual arguments were made). thus, professional academics like Dr. Peterson aren't trying to disrespect those who have unique personality and identity traits (who doesn't???). instead, they're trying to argue that everyone's rights can be secured by keeping identity-related topics separated from non-identity topics.

in conclusion, fuck your & everyone else's implicit identity. we're all going to die. stop caring so much about your stupid individual existence. i don't care if you like dicks; major in math so i can give an iota of a fuck about you. FUCK.

Only in NA