I tried to burn the book, but it won't catch alight! I think it's got some sort of spell protecting it. Any ideas?

(August 17, 2018 at 6:17 am)robvalue Wrote: I tried to burn the book, but it won't catch alight! I think it's got some sort of spell protecting it. Any ideas?

If burning does not work try water .

(August 17, 2018 at 3:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let's read it, then, and see if what you are saying IS a fact.

I'll wait for you here, I don't know why you think I'd be fucking with you about this or anything else.  

Quote:Nope, it's because the internet is a pile of unsubstantiated bullshit, and I always assume that unless someone can provide support for their position.  So far, you have a lot of metacommentary, one dubious link from Twitter (though it is kind of a problem for me), and nothing else.

If you could provide another half-dozen links, or a couple really solid passages, or a single really compelling video clip, then we'd be done here.

What would you like to talk about, Benny? How St. Pete doesn't actually understand human behavior? Evolutionary Biology? How St. Pete cons you..his viewer, with irrelevance to sell political inanity? How many times and by how many actual experts in multiple fields he's been corrected..even to his face..and nevertheless drove through that and repeated the same misinformation elsewhere? That the man even manages to add climate denial to his long list of completely predictable opinions....? The actual origins of all of his weird ass spider brained fears..with receipts?

Want me to link to the man crying in a very explanatory way (and I mean actually choking up, lol)?

He made himself a public figure. All of this is out there in the public domain..for you too. You're going to have to put down the koolaid, though. Rationalwiki even has an entry for the guy...because he's exactly the kind of person rationalwiki has entries for, lol..... He's a crank.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Be the person you want to hang around with.

(August 17, 2018 at 12:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: I suspect he's talking about a very deep hatred of identity politics, and specifically of communist identity politics that have lead to a loss of free speech and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

And what if there is no connection, Benny? You'll keep arguing that we demonstrate what the connection is when there might not be one.

Not if you ask St. Pete.  He's pretty sure that...like..everythings connected..man.  Which is why esp and fortune telling work.

(August 17, 2018 at 6:27 am)Khemikal Wrote: What would you like to talk about, Benny?  How St. Pete doesn't actually understand human behavior?  Evolutionary Biology?  How St. Pete cons you..his viewer, with irrelevance to sell political inanity?  How many times and by how many actual experts in multiple fields he's been corrected..even to his face..and nevertheless drove through that and repeated the same misinformation elsewhere?  The actual origins of all of his weird ass spider brained fears..with receipts?

Want me to link to the man crying in a very explanatory way (and I mean actually choking up, lol)?

He made himself a public figure.  All of this is out there in the public domain..for you too.  You're going to have to put down the koolaid, though.

Let's start in talking about the bill, first of all, and it's so ridiculously short and simple that I'm surprised nobody has done it yet. This is its COMPLETE form believe it or not.

Quote:First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017
STATUTES OF CANADA 2017
CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
ASSENTED TO
JUNE 19, 2017
BILL C-16



SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca



64-65-66 ELIZABETH II
CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
[Assented to 19th June, 2017]
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
R.‍S.‍, c. H-6
Canadian Human Rights Act
1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
2014, c. 31, s. 12

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
1995, c. 22, s. 6

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
 

Basically, in addition to the lists currently in the Act, race, religion etc. etc., they've tagged on "or gender identity or expression."

The stuff about pronouns cannot possibly be attributed to this, except indirectly: the government of Ontario has rules which MAY make a refusal to "accommodate" trans people against the law, though not criminal.  So I suppose taken together, it could mean that he could be fined if he refuses to accommodate a request to use "ze" or "zir," as Ontario involves a tribunal system and who knows what people will decide.  There is certainly an imaginable future where if things keep going as they are, there could be a kind of Big Brother PC Canada, but that time is not today, and it's such an abstract and distant risk that I'm perfectly willing to risk it.

Overall, I'd say it's a tremendously minor risk, and now that both sets of laws are in effect, I'd still be extremely surprised if anyone, ever, ended up with more than a fine or some community service over them.

So this one clearly goes to my former and renewed heart throb, the Prime Minister.

Given that, I'm also going to say it's likely that his comments about the Minister that you quoted are likely to be as abstract and poorly founded, and for the same reason-- he's thinking to hard about future hypotheticals, not about the actual state as it is today.


So here's my current stance on Peterson.  I think some of his candid remarks are very valuable.  I also dislike the radical PC, and I'm glad that someone will speak against them.  I have very much enjoyed some of his lectures about establishing meaning in life and so on.  But when it comes to the politics of left and right, I'm going to have to take him with a grain of salt, or possibly a pair of ear buds.

That being said-- I personally still hate the PC left, I still think that socially, if not in government, there is a real fight to dogmatize identity politics in a way that disgusts me.  So while my position on Peterson is now more informed, my position on the PC left is unlikely ever to change.

And just to distinguish what I mean by PC left, I should describe those leftist opinions which I fully share:
-I'm pro-choice, and pretty rabidly so.
-I'm for equal rights for all, so long as they are in good standing with the social contract themselves
-I believe in basic income, welfare, and free or affordable health care for all
-fuck Trump and the majority of Republicans

As for ideas I dislike:
-my opinion is irrelevant because of my demographic identity
-I should expect to tolerate a certain degree of insult or abuse due to the hardships of others, which constitutes a reasonable expression of frustration if coming from people of certain demographics, but must never insult or abuse people of certain demographic identities because my elevated level of privilege
-I have to use euphemisms: words like "differently abled" when someone is handicapped.  If you want to say someone is handicapped, I feel you should just say so.  If you want to refer to him, try using a name: "I saw John yesterday."
-I DO agree with Peterson about equality of outcome.  I think an employer should pay whoever they want whatever they want, and if someone thinks they are undervalued, they should fight for a raise or leave.

---

(August 17, 2018 at 6:17 am)robvalue Wrote: I tried to burn the book, but it won't catch alight! I think it's got some sort of spell protecting it. Any ideas?

Mail it to me.  I still haven't read it, and I want to see what all the hubbub's about.

(August 17, 2018 at 7:07 am)bennyboy Wrote: That being said-- I personally still hate the PC left, I still think that socially, if not in government, there is a real fight to dogmatize identity politics in a way that disgusts me.  So while my position on Peterson is now more informed, my position on the PC left is unlikely ever to change.

And just to distinguish what I mean by PC left, I should describe those leftist opinions which I fully share:
-I'm pro-choice, and pretty rabidly so.
-I'm for equal rights for all, so long as they are in good standing with the social contract themselves
-I believe in basic income, welfare, and free or affordable health care for all
-fuck Trump and the majority of Republicans

As for ideas I dislike:
-my opinion is irrelevant because of my demographic identity
-I should expect to tolerate a certain degree of insult or abuse due to the hardships of others, which constitutes a reasonable expression of frustration if coming from people of certain demographics, but must never insult or abuse people of certain demographic identities because my elevated level of privilege
-I have to use euphemisms: words like "differently abled" when someone is handicapped.  If you want to say someone is handicapped, I feel you should just say so.  If you want to refer to him, try using a name: "I saw John yesterday."
-I DO agree with Peterson about equality of outcome.  I think an employer should pay whoever they want whatever they want, and if someone thinks they are undervalued, they should fight for a raise or leave.

-and if your view of the pc left is as fundamentally wrong as your view of peterson was...? If you, for example..are the person engaged in identity politics, despite thinking that you hate it...?

Are those things you just mentioned actually leftist ideology, or do they represent something in your head, something whipped up by people like peterson? Something confirmed by shitty life experiences..which are..in all likelihood, also informed to some extent by the very contentions they now support in your mind?

(August 17, 2018 at 7:12 am)Khemikal Wrote: -and if your view of the pc left is as fundamentally wrong as your view of peterson was...?  If you, for example..are the person engaged in identity politics, despite thinking that you hate it...?

Are those things you just mentioned actually leftist ideology, or do they represent something in your head, something whipped up by people like peterson?  Something confirmed by shitty life experiences..which are..in all likelihood, also informed to some extent by the very contentions they now support in your mind?

Nope.  I'm going to stop you right there.  Maybe there's no True Scotsman.  But I've seen what affiliations people have, and what ideas tend to come clustered together.  I've seen plenty on my own.  I've seen plenty of PC dicks, and I find their particular flavor of dickishness to be as thoughtless and damaging as those of the crazy right.

And I didn't say I hate identity politics per se.  I said, for example, that I felt that native minorities should be offered all possible assistance just by their membership in that demographic.  What I hate is people using demographic identity as a scapegoat, or as a card to play to dodge personal responsibility.  I've given numerous examples, both hypothetical and from my own experience, where this expression of PC politics has been deleterious-- a waste of time at best, and a serious hostile act at worst.

Anyway, who are you to stand up for the credentials of the True PC Left™? Who, exactly, are these True Scotsman who are so full of virtue when the society around them is so horribly selfish and corrupt. I'd like to meet these fucking legendary examples of human perfection.

You've made pretty fair sport of psychoanalyzing me, and I've been very honest about my feelings and the reasons for them, so let me turn the tables. I think it's likely that you see yourself in some of my comments. When I complain about scapegoating, maybe you have made excuses that prevented you from living a life you might have preferred. When I talk about the moral weakness of victimizing one's own demographic to forgive oneself for falling short, maybe you have yourself in one of those boxes, and you don't like that it's being referred to as an expression of poor character. Maybe all your talk about your physical prowess was a mask for social insecurity, or physical infirmity, or poverty. Maybe you just like standing up in a public place and shouting at someone about their politics, because it's the only scenario in which you feel you can claim some personal power. Am I getting close? Are we having fun yet?

To me, life is this: making goals, and following them. Then making more goals, then following them. There are no excuses for me, because no matter what happens, I believe that trying will bring better results than complaining. I was abandoned by my mother from ages 4-7. Sucks, but it doesn't stop me from pressing the "Enter" key on the final line of code of a great program. I was bullied from 7-9 because I was quite literally retarded due to brain medication. But that doesn't stop me from running that next step on the treadmill. I was on the streets at 14, with dirty old gay guys trying to lure me into their houses with promises of a warm bed and a cup of hot chocolate. But that doesn't stop me from teaching my ass off and trying to be someone who matters in my students' lives.

See the trend here? I don't seek an identity for myself in order to enable failure-- and I cannot tolerate those moments when people who ARE like that interfere, even a little bit, with my pursuit of a decent narrative for my existence. And when that interference, that speedbump that I can't control, looks me in the eyes and says that I have to suffer the derailment because I'm privileged-- well, to put it succinctly, I'm likely to disagree.

If black people want a more equitable position in the power dynamics of America, I hope they will make that their goal, and step up and fucking take it. I don't want to hear "Wah wahhh the white man. . . " If gay people want a better position, let them be a collective terror for anyone who will resist them. I'd respect that more than a bunch of fucking talking heads blah blah blahing about heteronormative cisgender boo hoo hoo. I was hoping that Occupy Wall Street was going to result in straight-up lynchings of executives, with notes scrawled in blood that said "billion dollar bonus" stapled to their milky-white chests. I'd respect that. I'd understand it-- and the Wall Street execs understood it too, because until they realized Occupy Wall Street was just an excuse for a picnic, they were (possibly literally) shitting their collective pants.

(August 17, 2018 at 6:23 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(August 17, 2018 at 6:17 am)robvalue Wrote: I tried to burn the book, but it won't catch alight! I think it's got some sort of spell protecting it. Any ideas?

If burning does not work try water .

Fuck, that doesn't work either. I think this might actually be a magic book. I went a bit too far with the fire and I burned my whole living room, and all that survived was this book!

This can't be a coincidence. I'm going to have do some deep thinking about this.