Freedom of Speach Long Gone - COVID

[OftenWrong]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think we're talking past each other.  What Jordan called "compelled speech" means the government forces you to utter words.  It doesn't mean the government prevents you from using words, or classifies certain words as harassment.  Being prevented from misgendering is not compelled speech, any more than preventing someone to use the n-word is compelled speech.

I supported Peterson's contention that compelled speech would be an overreach of government power but it wasn't explicitly included in the legislation and hasn't been an issue.  From what I have read it isn't likely to be implied either.

2. Since we have gone around this a few times and you haven't differentiated between what happened and what Jordan himself defines as 'compelled speech', I stand by my understanding.

3. I discuss things with intellectual honesty.  If you doubt me then you shouldn't engage with me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 2:48 Peterson defines 'compelled speech' as clearly as needed.

"Requires Canadians to utter a particular form of address"

So his concern was that C16 would legally require me to call you "he/she/xie" or whatever you insist on.   It's not the same as the government, courts, or HRC classifying 'misgendering' as harassment which is what the BC case was about.

Indeed, if you called someone "she" against their wishes, whatever their orientation was then that would be a case for workplace harassment.  But the video makers fall down by using unspecific language:I got this from the first 30 seconds of the video when they said he was predicting that the government was 'criminalizing the use of the wrong pronoun'.  

See 2:48 of this video where Peterson uses specific and exact wording for what compelled speech means.

 

 

Speaking of which,

is this story related to what y'all are talking about?

Quote

“I find that the current views expressed by the child are not independent, rather are the result of influence by his mother and the doctor she retained to oppose the motion. The mother will be ordered … not to provide the child with any information directly or indirectly about COVID-19 vaccines contrary to what is provided by the Canadian, Ontario and Ottawa public health authorities.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/local-news/judge-bans-ottawa-mother-from-advising-son-against-covid-19-vaccine/wcm/0674c397-14ff-4cc1-a11b-919c7d60c08d

Makes you wonder, how a mother could not talk to her child if the child asks a direct question.

How can the views of a child be expressed as "independent"? They are a child, by necessity a dependent.

---------------------------------------------------------

And also this one here-

Anti-mask activists ordered by Calgary judge to preach science, too

Germain suggested wording like: "I am aware that the views I am expressing to you may not be held by medical experts … the majority of medical experts favour social distancing … vaccine programs."

---------------------------------------------------------

Note that last link is a CBC, just in case there's any question as to the quality of my cites, by the resident diarrhea-lama

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Speaking of which,

is this story related to what y'all are talking about?

No.  This one:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-server-who-was-fired-after-asking-to-be-addressed-by-correct-pronouns-awarded-30k-1.6194662

When you read the details, the phrase "Peterson was right all along" sure rings hollow.  

"Please refer to me as _______" gets you fired when you're being harassed ?  Conservatives should support this worker IMO.  YouTubers, though, just need clicks...

 

Quote

A former server at a Gibsons, B.C. restaurant has been awarded $30,000 after a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision found they were unfairly terminated for asking managers and co-workers to call them by their proper pronouns.

The decision, by the tribunal's Devyn Cousineau, found that Jessie Nelson, a non‐binary, gender fluid, transgender person who uses they/them pronouns, was terminated because of "how they responded to discrimination" from their employer and a colleague.

 

In 2019, Nelson was hired as a server at Buono Osteria, a restaurant run by Michael Buono and Ryan Kingsberry in Gibsons, on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast. The 42-page decision describes a work environment where some colleagues respected Nelson's pronouns, while others were unhappy when they raised issues about inclusion.

The decision says bar manager Brian Gobelle was particularly hostile, repeatedly and persistently referring to Nelson with she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like "sweetheart," "honey," and "pinky" — a reference to their pink hair.

 

[OftenWrong]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  This one:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-server-who-was-fired-after-asking-to-be-addressed-by-correct-pronouns-awarded-30k-1.6194662

When you read the details, the phrase "Peterson was right all along" sure rings hollow.  

"Please refer to me as _______" gets you fired when you're being harassed ?  Conservatives should support this worker IMO.  YouTubers, though, just need clicks...

 

 

I see. Well to me the Calgary case is a recent example of court-ordered compelled speach. I was a bit surprised to see that coming from a court, "You must say the following". It's an information war

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I see. Well to me the Calgary case is a recent example of court-ordered compelled speach. I was a bit surprised to see that coming from a court, "You must say the following". It's an information war

Agreed.  It's odd, but not the same as speech compelled by the laws.

 

Courts order apologies and such, I think, so that could be seen as compelled speech.

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So his concern was that C16 would legally require me to call you "he/she/xie" or whatever you insist on.   It's not the same as the government, courts, or HRC classifying 'misgendering' as harassment which is what the BC case was about.

that is the same thing

utter the wrong pronouns

get fined $30,000

that is compelled speech

that is exactly what Peterson warned about

you are being ridiculous

you cling to your former understanding

which was wrong and you refuse to admit was wrong

even after being clearly shown that this understanding was proven false

that is textbook cognitive dissonance

you are not arguing in good faith

Edited October 24, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that is the same thing

utter the wrong pronouns

get fined $30,000

Now... I took great pains to explain the difference between uttering the wrong pronouns and compelled speech.  Me calling you an "n***r" versus the government forcing me to say the word "Sir" before addressing you.

It's not legally the same, and Dr. Peterson was quite clear and specific in his definition.  I don't think I can be any clearer in my examples or citing Dr. Peterson.

I'm arguing in good faith, but I don't think we can get past that disagreement. 

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Note that last link is a CBC, just in case there's any question as to the quality of my cites,

And I read it too, thank you very much.

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

by the resident diarrhea-lama

My classmates in Grade 5 had better name-based insults.  Try harder.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

My classmates in Grade 5 had better name-based insults.

Insults?

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Just avoid making the discussions personal.  You all know that. 

[Yzermandius19]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Now... I took great pains to explain the difference between uttering the wrong pronouns and compelled speech.  Me calling you an "n***r" versus the government forcing me to say the word "Sir" before addressing you.

It's not legally the same, and Dr. Peterson was quite clear and specific in his definition.  I don't think I can be any clearer in my examples or citing Dr. Peterson.

I'm arguing in good faith, but I don't think we can get past that disagreement. 

the government is forcing you to use the correct pronouns and not use incorrect pronouns

it is both in the case of Bill C-16, and JP said as much

the main distinction JP made between Bill C-16 and other hate speech legislation

was that Bill C-16 was not just forcing you to not say the wrong word, but say only the right words on top of it

you can't get passed the disagreement because of cognitive dissonance

constantly looking for any distraction to avoid admitting you were wrong about the main issue

so you obfuscate with side tangents in an attempt to convince yourself that you are making sense and weren't wrong

Edited October 25, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Scott Mayers]

On 10/23/2021 at 6:56 PM, Michael Hardner said:

So if you can afford your own server then you don't own your site ?  

You keep talking about 'licensing' but there is, as far as I can tell, no such specific licensing for public places aside from fire code compliance and so on and no licensing of public access websites.

Ok, maybe it's trivial but it establishes the conceptual limit of ownership of domain vs. right to speech.

"Superior authority of trust" - whatever this is, it's immaterial to the discussion at hand.

We could get into the legal weeds about whether a landlord vs tenants' rights to kick people out of a home have eminence but... that has no bearing on the discussion of free speech online that I can see.

You said "I believe".  Well, you may believe it but do you have any examples where the law & the courts believe it ?  Because I'm unable to navigate your logic here, I would love to hear some examples where the courts specifically overruled a private site from censoring a post or determining what they wanted posted on the site.

Ok, well I would say that solving small problems is easier than huge ones.

Ok, I accept it.  It sounds like you support restricting or defining the rights of the website owners and admin, but not in the same we Trudeau wants to.

My idea that a truly public communication channel could solve this problem including the 'free speech' issue.

No, if we do not own our own sites, we do not 'own' our material. It might be the case that I could start a blog or website that is on another server, but I know of none of them that literally has no legal clause that asserts their right over the content to have a priority right to remove it. [Didn't someone's own website recently get removed this way in the news? I'll have to look that up.]

You also falsely claim that I'm interested in taking away 'rights' of owners of sites. What I do assert is that IF a site is public, the material that people post should have absolute rights of ownership of their material.

AND, I have just a case in point that I'm struggling with personally that is frustrating: I often write my own ideas,  theories, and conjectures online of which my significant ones have vanished into thin air. One that I spoke about here (in a summary) is my "Theory on Temples and Sacrifice". This is not my original argument and lacks the depth of the logic I put into it. Here is it only the 'conjecture' but the original sufficed as proof using an indepth argument to how and why this is necessarily true. 

I also happened to have spoken on a physics theory (only roughly laid out) on various forums presuming I can trust those forums. These too have disappeared and where I did have ones that still exist I am discovering that the titles are either changed to falsely reflect my view and/or where I had contentious arguments with some, some of the material has remained but do not reflect me in a good light! 

I don't care what you presume, but I'm discovering that I cannot trust any forums anymore to speak of any unique and valued content of my own and this is tantamount to severe CENSORSHIP, not to mention SABATOGE and possibly THEFT of intellectual content! It is no wonder to me that the politics of online activity is intentionally being reduced to garbage: it is being framed to favor ONLY the image that those with fortune and power are wanting the rest to see. 

I don't know what I'm going to do now that I cannot trust where I speak and everyone else should be just as skeptical. I also do not know what can be done. The most I can do is NEGATE the views of others and even this may be useless if it too can be manipulated. 

Anyways, I have to get back to figuring out what happened to my material elsewhere. I backed it all up but even now most sites, including this one, makes it hard to save our content. [This site's printout has issues with its printout by cutting off the lefthand side of our discussions, for instance.]

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Scott Mayers

[Queenmandy85]

If I request you refer to me as she or any other preferred pronoun, simple courtesy and good manners that you should have learned as toddler, should be enough to do so. There is no excuse for bad manners.

[Faramir]

Defamation laws in Canada and the UK seem to be predatory.  Part of the free speech problem.  For example, if you call a person a NAZI you can be sued, which is ridiculous.  No serious person believes or expects any one else to believe the subject in question is really a Nazi.  It is a subjective term.  Totally different than saying the subject in general cheats on his taxes, or fondles underage girls.  That is a statement of fact.  A subjective can not be a statement of fact.  

[Faramir]

On 10/21/2021 at 12:49 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I'll answer for you: no.

You can say "woman" still, you can say "Merry Christmas", and you can say the n-word.  You can scream on a street corner that the world is flat as long as you're not causing a riot.

People who want to say we are like North Korea now look like complete dolts to me, but that's just me maybe.

The difference is in degree.

[cougar]

Our poster Alice made another comment on CBC regarding minister's Horgan announcement he has undergone surgery, which was quickly disabled by CBC.

Contents:

Get well and keep in mind many residents in your province don't get to see a doctor the day they need it for a similar lump and don't jump on the surgery table the very next day. They wait for month and months. And if you let the unvaccinated medical employees lose their jobs, it will get even worse.

Given the selectivity of the disabled content we can now rule out the mistake factor.

Edited November 5, 2021 by cougar

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Given the selectivity of the disabled content we can now rule out the mistake factor.

Seems unfair.

 

So what are you going to do?  Complain about CBCs moderation... On here ?

[Michael Hardner]

I've been kicked off many conservative Facebook pages that complain about free speach [sic] ?

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I've been kicked off many conservative Facebook pages that complain about free speach [sic] ?

You’ve gone back to calling yourself a liberal, then?

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You’ve gone back to calling yourself a liberal, then?

No - they're not conservatives because they don't value freedom (of speech).

Many people these days are confused as to what they are.  I saw one guy post that the multinationals were against the oil industry.

 

[OftenWrong]

On 11/5/2021 at 8:51 PM, Michael Hardner said:

No

Many people these days are confused as to what they are.

Yes, so it seems.

...

On 10/30/2021 at 4:13 PM, Michael Hardner said:

 I'm liberal, but I honestly don't understand

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, so it seems.

liberal does not equal "Liberal".  I'm not Liberal.

Also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party

[OftenWrong]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

liberal does not equal "Liberal".  I'm not Liberal.

Which I never said. Seems like no one wants to admit being Liberal these days. Yet the man was re-elected. So presumably there are many Liberals who simply pinched their noses and voted L, and now call themselves liberals.

That’s why, liberalism is now just as bad. Enabler. 

Liberalism is a will to consumerism. Liberalism is also anti-environmental at heart, imo. Just that it is giving a megaphone to certain liberals to tell us what to do, as though the system can be sustained longer. By system I mean consuming the shit out of everything, and believing technology will save us by replacing fossil fuel CO2 with toxic waste such as mercury, gallium, arsenic, lithium, and advanced space-age polymers.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Which I never said.
2. Seems like no one wants to admit being Liberal these days.
3. Yet the man was re-elected. So presumably there are many Liberals who simply pinched their noses and voted L, and now call themselves liberals
4. That’s why, liberalism is now just as bad. Enabler. 
5. Liberalism is a will to consumerism. Liberalism is also anti-environmental at heart, imo. Just that it is giving a megaphone to certain liberals to tell us what to do, as though the system can be sustained longer.
6. By system I mean consuming the shit out of everything, and believing technology will save us by replacing fossil fuel CO2 with toxic waste such as mercury, gallium, arsenic, lithium, and advanced space-age polymers.

1. Sorry - your apparent confusion confused me.  One can be liberal and conservative, and I guess you know that.
2. I think people who are would admit it.
3. Convoluted.  Probably not what happened.  I drove across the city, on city streets not highways, a week or two before the election and saw 3 conservative signs, mostly Liberal signs with some NDP.  I suspect the people who vote LIberal are just status-quo admirers.
4. More convoluted.  Small 'l' liberalism is a general philosophy that ... well, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#:~:text=Liberalism is a political and,and equality before the law.&text=Liberals also ended mercantilist policies,promoting free trade and marketization.

 

Quote

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.^[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.^[1

5. 6. Ok - and a will to 'freedom of speech' as per the OP

[taxme]

On 10/14/2021 at 2:26 PM, TreeBeard said:

Why would they go to the trouble of doing that?

Maybe it is because they do not like conservatives? Hello. ?

[taxme]

On 10/14/2021 at 2:21 AM, cougar said:

Now look at the post below and explain to me how the poster named Alice Barton broke CBC rules in order to have her content disabled?

I believe Alice has an excellent case against CBC.

 

 

Oh, get over it. Canada is doomed. Freedom of speech pretty much died a long time ago. Canada died in 1980 when old man comrade Trudeau became the communist dictator of Canada. We have politicians who could careless about you or Canada. They have pretty much all become nothing more than a bunch of power hungry dictators. Do as we say, peasants. Ignore what we do, peasants. 

The majority of Canadians have become nothing more than a bunch of crybaby losers. They have become a gullible, naive, obedient, docile and mostly stupid bunch of peasants who can be made to do or believe anything. 

 A prime example was this covid fraud and hoax. The peasants fell for it hook, line and sinker. They cannot even figure out as of yet as to why they still have to wear a mask after themselves getting fully vaccinated. The peasants are fully vaccinated so why are they still wearing a mask. Because they are dumb. And I can be pretty sure that these peasants will be convinced that global climate is a real thing. the next big covid lie. 

There have been numerous demonstrations against this covid medical tyranny madness. Has anyone here been to one yet? I doubt it. IMHO, I do not think that most members here give a real chit about anything. If they would ask more questions or challenge what goes on maybe we would get somewhere. 

Anyways peasants, go get your booster shot and dry up. ?