Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jester13

Members
  • Posts

    5,817
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Jester13

  1. I appreciate the kind words. I'm also very interested in free speech and how everyone wants it, promotes it, but often do not know how to exercise it in a constructive and/or productive way. Honestly, it's also just way more fun to use the dialectic in discussions rather than talking over each other, or insulting other opinions either overtly or covertly, etc. It always ends up going nowhere and creates a large divide whereas taking things through often ends up with a positive result. Absolutely. Now everyone has an opinion without ever having to be accountable as to why they have that opinion. If they're ever challenged on it they often end up doing whatever it takes to shut down the challenger. This is why I asked, The Trial and Death of Socrates, anyone? For those who haven't read it, it's one of two readings that have drastically and instantly changed my life. Here's the Coles Notes. In it, an oracle says that Socrates is the wisest man of them all. Socrates thinks to himself that surely there are men wiser than he, so he begins to walk around Athens to find these wiser men. He subsequently asks them questions such as 'what is justice', and with each answer he's given he then asks another question to dig deeper, as he can see there is more to it than the answer given. So he gets more answers, and he gives more questions, and gets more answers, etc., to the point where people reach an end to their beliefs and they realize that they don't actually know as much about the question that they thought they knew. Socrates is then charged with corrupting the people/youth of Athens because they get annoyed with him for showing each of them that they don't know as much as they think they do, that their opinions are untenable. He is sentenced to either leave Athens and stop philosophizing or drink hemlock and die. His response is "The unexamined life is not worth living", so he drinks the hemlock and dies. This story is thousands of years old, yet here we are with a bunch of opinions on very important issues in society and there are hardly any Socrates around who want to actually practice the true dialectic to get to the truth of issues rather than just sit on untenable opinions. Ok, so Jimmy has an opinion on JP that most of us disagree with. So let's talk to him like he's willing to talk to us. Or, let's discuss JP, SJWs, Cherry, Trump, the journalist, etc., in a way that continues to dig deeper into the root issues rather than stay silent, or use emojis to express ourselves (which doesn't really add much), or shout, or hit ignore, you get the idea. Why do people have to be so married to their opinions? Why can't instead the search for truth be the end goal?
  2. It is definitely an interesting phenomenon, the group use of emojis to express displeasure or control over a person, and I think it directly relates to this thread. It's why I asked a poster how pointing it out is a threat of control over someone's freedom of expression, as it seems to me like the use of the group emoji is more of a threat of control over Jimmy's freedom of expression in this context, same as it is in the context of the Beyhive.
  3. Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe I'm attempting to provoke thought in others within a contentious and divisive discussion. I see the war all the time going on between the journalist-type and the Cherry-type, and I see a way to bridge the gap between the two. I prefer to try and be part of the solution rather than the problem. And I'd bet that @Jimmy McGill has likely, in some way at least, updated his opinion on his original statement. I've encountered him before and he's shown the ability to have opinions, strong ones as well, and learn from the discussion. This has only happened because he's willing to talk and learn rather than just hold opinions, stay silent, and use emojis in place of words.
  4. Was there something provocative about saying that? Although I think we would likely agree quite a lot on the whole microaggression topic, I personally think there's some validity within the idea. However, I consider myself to have a high emotional IQ, so I don't agree with the more-than-often response towards such covert expressions of prejudice. I often say of the SJWs that they're well-intentioned but misguided in their actions. Amen to the bolded, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the far left is directly responsible for the equally dangerous response from the far right but rather they have merely given the far right more justification for voicing and acting on their already-held dangerous ideology(ies). I would argue that the journalist and Cherry represent the root cause of the major divide in society right now: one is incredibly offensive and the other is incredibly fragile. Both, in my opinion, are wrong in their beliefs and actions. That's easy to say until you're on the receiving end of all of it. Sure, some people have thicker skin than others, but the empathy that people are asking for towards JP can go both ways, no?
  5. It sounds like you agree that there's a societal war going on between the SJWs and the opposite side of the spectrum, so I ask you: how are you adding to the solution?
  6. Could someone say the same thing of the constant use of a confused emoji face, that it's a mild attempt at controlling the poster's opinion? Adding to that a little deeper, is there not more of an implied meaning behind the constant use of the emoji that not only does a poster disagree but also they want to, in a sense, bully the poster with the more-than-usual use of the emoji, especially when the receiving poster so obviously felt unnecessarily attacked from the ostensibly more-than-usual use when he was merely trying his best to discuss? Maybe that's what drove the PM with the request to stop such use of the expression. And, fair enough on the challenge of discussing with some posters, as it certainly is tough to keep people on track within a discussion, especially when there are disagreements; I mean, often when getting into a discussion - especially a contentious discussion - when someone switches the conversation onto another point or refuses to address key points it's a sign of the person not fully knowing their stance and they instead subconsciously - or sometimes consciously - dodge so they don't have to admit/concede fault in their own reasoning. The Trial and Death of Socrates, anyone? I don't mean this to offend, and this is not fully in response to you: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein In this context, this is to say that lots of people do have feelings either for or against JP, but that many (most?) people on both sides haven't taken the time to try and fully understand and/or formulate their feelings/opinions/beliefs on the guy or topic, so instead we get lots of emotions back and forth that don't really help the situation much and instead do more harm. Granted, not everyone has the training on how to properly formulate thought(s) and then express said thought(s), but this is all the more reason society needs the dialectic reintroduced into discussion, because otherwise we end up throwing emojis or emotions or words, or what have you, around without regard for the damage it all does to all of us within our social contact, or we lurk and stay silent. Let's put it this way, imagine if someone felt the freedom to express within a post without any fear of being called out or reprimanded that they are having a hard time articulating what they're feeling towards the subject, and then said poster tries their best to express their feelings, and then a discussion begins with other posters trying to help formulate those feelings into something more tangible; or, imagine said poster keeps those feelings bottled up and never expresses them. Which would be the more ideal outcome? I'm betting the former is a better form of freedom of expression for everyone involved, as it negates the need for dodging or emojis or silence and instead celebrates the act of the dialectic. Isn't philosophy fun?
  7. Unless the confused posters actually post their true intentions
  8. I was wondering whether it was in good fun or whether it wasn't. Judging by some of the posters and the last reply I just got, tho, they may not be. If they are then that's great, but so far it seems more likely they weren't in good fun. But I could be wrong.
  9. If you would argue this, then argue it. Please expand on this idea as to how exactly this is encroaching on your freedom of expression.
  10. The incessant use of confused emojis by the same posters over and over every time he makes a post, even one when he says how he appreciates those who discussed with him in a constructive manner and that he enjoys learning from others, is more than just "offering feedback". It's a sign that not only do posters disagree with him but they also (more so) don't have the ability to just discuss with someone they disagree with in a constructive way for an extended period of time. No?
  11. Well, he and I disagree on the "reap what you sow" thing, but at least he's been willing to discuss and debate in a respectful way rather than just hide behind an emoji. All the confused emojis are quite symbolic, actually, of the issue that JP has been up against, in that there's no room anymore for differing opinions. Instead, people decide not to discuss the differences in a constructive manner but rather try to shut down the differing opinions with insults or emojis. It's too bad, really, because being able to discuss things is how good rhetoricians can change hearts and minds, which is an unfortunate artform that is increasingly being lost to loud voices.
  12. Did I miss something? What is with all the confused emojis you're getting?
  13. I agree that he knows what he's doing, and I, too, have always disliked that aspect of him as well and instead prefer Sam Harris, who has ripped him to shreds a few times in debates (and called JP out on his dog whistling), but to be fine with him suffering from what he has and is suffering from and the reasons behind it is a little harsh for moi.
  14. That's what was happening to JP, tho? His students were trying to cancel him, and his job was threatened as a result many times, simply because he was protesting the law and not because he was refusing to use someone's pronouns.
  15. U of A professor says she was dismissed over views that biological sex trumps transgender identity for policy decisions https://flip.it/Swq84y This is the latest that falls in line with what JP was warning about. It's not always a matter of whether it will be brought to court or just to the court of opinion, but if we can't allow room for differing opinions then we are limiting free speech. We need to be able to disagree with each other, as that's how we move forward in society. Now people are getting shut down because students get uncomfortable with what they're hearing. Now it's entrenched in law and in the court of public opinion, and anyone who has a different opinion is toast.
  16. @Jimmy McGill also, about Ontario, they do offer a good recommendation for people, after they mention that misgendering is discrimination and unlawful.
  17. Tough to say without examples in Canada to go through. I don't think JP went over the line, yet many of his students and their supporters sure do believe he did. The line, I think, is when someone is using discriminatory language to propagandize hate towards a person or group to call harm against them. The example about the salon I don't believe to be a fair comparison, as the person was found to have some hateful bias towards non-white ethnic groups, and the defense was mostly about not having proper training and being forced to touch certain genitalia, which likely had mostly to do with the transperson being found to be the aggressor and not the victim. Again, JP was arguing from a stance of principle and not necessarily what would happen in court in reality... yet. And, honestly, were it not for his protest, there could very well have been more of a landscape conducive to the law being exercised more, as his protest created lots of pushback against the law and it's possible use.
  18. I don't think it comes down to that. I think it's more a matter of principle, because misgendering someone is considered discriminatory in law. If it isn't, I've yet to see it isn't.
  19. Well, I think Islamophobia is often misteprented or misunderstood as well. It's also difficult to say exactly what that person's view is on a deeper level than just his ironic t-shirt. Is it a provocative shirt? Yes. Is it anything more than that? Depends on who you ask. JP and others, such as Sam Harris, have been criticised many times by the left with charges of Islamophobia, when they've only ever criticised the bad ideas that are so obviously part of the religion, and never have they criticised Muslim people, from what I've ever seen or read. Same as how JP has criticised bad law and not ever once refusing to call someone by their pronouns. I'm betting the guy wearing the shirt feels the same way that JP and Harris do about the left's hypocrisy on promoting liberal ideals yet not when it comes to Islam. This has been going on for a while, as well. The classic moment with Harris on Bill Maher, which I vividly remember watching live, is a moment that really brought it to light: Affleck represents why people where an ironic shirt like the guy on the photo. BA literally proves Harris's point right after Harris makes it.
  20. If anyone presses with a claim of discrimination against them from someone else with, say, racial slurs, then they could make a case against them, and with where things are at right now with the public court of opinion, it's tough to say how that would go. It's this type of trajectory that people like Cleese and JP have been warning against. As I showed with Ontario's description of their law, as an example, misgendering is considered discrimination. And what JP was saying about pronouns is how someone can demand someone else use new pronouns such as zie or per, and if that person doesn't do so they can make a legal charge against said person for discrimination. IIRC, this is now in Canadian law, and I've never seen it read anything to say it's not? It may not have been challenged yet, but it will sure be interesting to see how that will turn out one day, cause it's coming.
  21. From Ontario where he works and lives: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun? The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination. As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman. Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular. Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach. Whether anyone has been charged is moot, as JP has always argued on a matter of principle and why it's wrong to compel speech. And I know you disagree with it being called compelled speech, but it's exactly that. Granted, he ostensibly dog whistles (knowingly or unknowingly) to the far right freedom of speech advocates, but there are plenty of leftists and centrists who also applaud him for standing up to the law (such as myself), as freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy and being an advocate for it does not label someone as being conservative or far right or anything like it. Also, anything going against all of our freedom of speech begins down a path towards fascism. This is not hyperbole but an observable path throughout history. Does anyone else remember when John Cleese spoke out in support of FoS in the UK when it became illegal to tell offensive jokes? This is not a new debate in the western world and has been raging for many years. JP merely is the one to first stand up to it publicly in Canada. Lastly, no one has been charged yet, but people have been called out and cancelled as a result. Should someone be fired for saying the wrong thing and not getting the chance to apologize? Because that sure has happened way too many times already. If his students that caused the callout in the first place, and then the following uproar of their supporting sychophants, actually took the time to hear what he was arguing in the first place then maybe there would've been a different outcome, but the unfortunate reality is that right now the callout and cancel culture on the left is loud and increasing just like he warned. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm not a fan of JP for many reasons, but he has absolutely hit the nail on the head with what's causing this new left phenomenon, and it's post-modern hypocritical thinking mixed with a lot of bunk scholarship. The topic of JP and all the controversy surrounding him is a deep one, and there's lots of misunderstanding and misrepresenting involved. Any questions please feel free to ask, because I'm fairly well-versed in the debate.
  22. Not true, actually. See below. Peterson has never said he would refuse to call someone by their pronouns, and this was never the issue in the first place. However, people on the left either misunderstood or blatantly misrepresented his views. He has said since the beginning that the issue is that Canadian law was changed to force people into saying someone's preferred pronouns, including a great number of newly created pronouns. Essentially, compelled speech, which is why he's been such a prominent voice for free speech. As in the video, he has no problem calling someone by their pronoun. He doesn't deny, he just doesn't believe it should be compelled into law where people can be fined or worse jailed. I'm also of the "I'm not a big fan of JP" crowd, as I find his recent 15 mins of fame to be a lot of dog whistling to an unsavoury crowd most of the time (and he knows that's what he's doing), and he's a professional obfuscator in his debates; however, I do think he's 100% bang on with his criticism of hypocritical post-modern thinking and bunk social science and humanities scholarship that's creating the callout and cancel culture on the left, which has lots of similarities with fascist expresses of power. I also think his critics who hate him so much haven't taken the time to try and fully understand his views. I digress and wish him well and don't believe he deserves any ill will like some are wishing on him. He would never wish the same on anyone else.
  23. It may destroy any bargaining power for an overpayment, but I think what it does instead is give him the power to bargain a fair deal. Fans would be pissed if a GM low balls a player who has been around for a long time and openly expresses a desire to remain with the team and is still quite valuable.
  24. Don't forget Linden's other boy Cloutier let go and Clark brought in.
×
×
  • Create New...