Michael Hardner

Hate crimes are illegal, and they should be persecuted but I suspect "stoking" is very subjective in this context. Church arsons are being investigated - 12 charged, 6 from indigenous communities, 1 conviction so far.

https://338canada.com/alberta/20260523-ang-ind.htm Latest Angus Reid - 60% stay 35% leave - for the record

Indeed it did, and maybe the current question is how do we handle it as a country ? I think that that band jumped to conclusions, from what I understand, and did their cause a disservice. Further to that, people who jump in to defend them should, I believe, not be reluctant to agree that they were incorrect on the facts. Because part of this is verifying the facts, and egregious mistakes have to be dealt with. Then what ? We can forgive mistakes, and we should. And we should ask what these conversations are about. Being sorry, for sure, is something we can do but we can also frame such things and we have done so. Remembrance Day, Truth and Reconciliation Day, and unofficial public commemorations of various kinds do this - so we know how to do it. What isn't helpful is blaming "groups" for mistakes of some members, as well as the opposite of this: pretending that an uncaring majority wasn't complicit in allowing things to happen. And for Residential Schools, let's be honest - the "progressives" of that day made the biggest mistakes. I would say the message is of human caring, humility and promising to do better but not blaming, chest beating and signalling virtue over opposing political teams. Quoting @August1991 for the umpteenth time: we get along.

Gemini pointed to this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/plebiscitarianism-revisited-a-typology-of-independence-referendums/685CF6CC6ADF1D6AF10D07C808960449 I agree that it's too low a mark but that's just an opinion. Politically, you would have to contend with the backlash if you tried to legislate a higher number, IMO, especially if a significant measure of support for secession already exists.

Just ask THEM

1. No, I'm not. I'm saying they are both in the domain of the employer 2. I'm saying you can't legislate against attitudes. Nothing more. 3. Well, they're subject to the same laws as the rest of us. 4. Well, in an employment situation, you signed the contract so you have to deal with the terms. 5. No. I think you're getting bored with me not fighting with you, so you're starting something by misrepresenting me. 6. I'm fine with calling people the way they want to be called. Go ahead and live your life and I'll live mine.

I don't. You keep making up opinions of mine despite evidence to the contrary. I don't understand it at all. Every time I unhide a post of yours it seems like there's another one.

Employer - if the employer demands you to use pronouns, wear a uniform, or address the boss as "sir" then yes you have to do it. It's a condition of employment and therefore ok with me. Lawmaker - they can't legislate attitudes towards transgender, and any attempt to do so is thought control and therefore impractical and wrong. Administrator - I would need more context on what you mean. "cause damage" - is a very subjective term. Reputational Damage is especially hard to quantify/define. I would say if you're worried about it, you probably suffered it somehow. The flipside of not being able to legislate attitudes towards gender is that you can't legislate attitudes against it either. If people think it's ok, then it will be ok for them. We have seen this with popular attitudes towards feminism, LGBTQ+, religion, race What the market will bear is the way it goes for everything today, for better or for worse. It's a symptom of a market-based society wherein there is no protest vote, no effective public protest and no public sphere. BUT If you do something to annoy people off to the point where they BOYCOTT you... well that's SOMETHING. Margins aren't thick enough to support controversy across the board.

Penalized by whom ? There are circumstances where someone may receive adverse impacts from their attitudes but any comment I would have on that depends on the context.

It's not, that's the point. There have been some examples of people posting stories... Non-woke folks getting punished for using the wrong pronoun or whatever.. But the details of the story ended up being harassment. That said, there were some actual examples of word policing in the UK that led to people going to jail and I don't agree with that at all.

Well there's harassment... But language is usually only a part of that. I could call you an oak tree and that's not a problem. But if I call you every 10 minutes all night and call you an oak tree and stand outside your house and yell that you're an oak tree.. at some point it becomes harassment. But I don't think people should be legally penalized. You can get kicked out of somebody's house for being rude, or fired for not following company policy... Policy... Using language they dictate, saying things in public that they don't agree with, or not wearing the right clothes at work. I could comment on other examples, but is that clear enough? Some people on here want to assign opinions to me and then argue about them. That's called a straw man. I don't think you're doing that.

No, generally. But that's a very general question right?

I thought I did? I said that I don't disrespect people based on their use of pronouns.

Dune Buggys, for one. They are also far less neurotic.

I feel that the controversy around pronouns is similar to the one around the use of "Ms." In the 1970s. That controversy died down, I would suggest, because honorifics generally fell out of use and feminism won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.

Didn't they just say they would use the general rules of decorum that I said I would follow? I feel like most people would just follow this path. As @August1991 says ... we get along.

Says who? I know lots of people who don't use the new language. I don't disrespect them based on one thing. So weird that you make up opinions of mine and then argue against them.

"wrong" ? That's a new one... is it morally wrong for me to use common and ostensibly polite language/decorum how I see fit ? I don't think so.

Very progressive...

That is laughable... Your priorities are pretty jumbled, I'd say but you get a vote too....

Corporate HR has mandated it as standard in places where I have worked. It takes basically 0 time since you do it with regular updates of your signature... The upside is it makes 1% of people or so feel like they're recognized.

'NAZIs were leftist' should be a litmus test for being bought into the current populist cult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election They beat the Socialists and the Communists... so where was the right wing then ?

I got my quotes in the wrong order... Your teacher for Nietzsche today will be Professor Rick Roderick, RIP: Europe is wealthy - do you think the hedonism culture is comparable ? I don't but it's more American than it used to be. When I lived in France they made fun of McDonalds but they all secretly went. Now i doubt they make fun of it.

And when one arrives at the beach, they unpack their boombox and bong.. In any case... Thematically pursuit of happiness puts liberalism into a life context that gives meaning to it above the economic and political definitions. Back to the op.... The first steps were about weakening the ties between the nation and religion, or state religion anyway. At that point we are on our way to Nietzsche and the death of God. And then a couple of centuries later... There is a grasping for some kind of meaning. The true face of it finally comes up with Trump who brags that he pays fewer taxes. Now that's something new, a new kind of meaning, which seems honest: make as much money as you can.