Do you use gender pronouns?

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

Skipped over mine again i see   Pretending we didn't see it are we?

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

You start generally and drill down.

So what conditions should people be penalized for not getting onboard with gender pronouns? 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You start generally and drill down.

So what conditions should people be penalized for not getting onboard with gender pronouns?

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.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

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.

Nobody does that Mike. They repeat opinions you expressed in the past and give you an opportunity to clarify your position

It can't be helped that you refuse to do so when offered. And certainly it is a reasonable position to assume that if someone asks you specifically to clarify your position and you don't clarify it then what they had explained their understanding of your position to be previously must be when you agree with

As I said, your hypocrisy is amazing and it's of your own making.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

How is your scenario different from someone who is harrassing someone else who isn't part of that community? 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

How is your scenario different from someone who is harrassing someone else who isn't part of that community? 

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. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

 

 

You change your tune about that pretty regular. and you do feel people need to be punished for 'badspeak' when it comes to trans people. 
 

Heck i just asked you if you agreed that people should have the right not to use a person's pronoun of choice if they don't want to and you couldn't. You believe people DON"T have that right. So, if not jail, you certainly believe they should be punished for not complying with others' demands. 

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

 

 

When I ask whether someone should be penalized for not accepting gender identity, I'm not referring to things like harassment, I'm referring to someone who refuses to use pronouns for himself or someone who refuses to acknowledge someone else's preferred identity. 

What do you think?

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, Deluge said:

When I ask whether someone should be penalized for not accepting gender identity, I'm not referring to things like harassment, I'm referring to someone who refuses to use pronouns for himself or someone who refuses to acknowledge someone else's preferred identity. 

What do you think?

You're obviously referring to yourself. What does your employer, professional association or school board think?

Hoping someone will penalize these for making acknowledgement their policy will probably only add another layer of frustration to your angst.

You could just put it out of your mind but that's probably too hard.

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You're obviously referring to yourself. What does your employer, professional association or school board think?

Hoping someone will penalize these for making acknowledgement their policy will probably only add another layer of frustration to your angst.

You could just put it out of your mind but that's probably too hard.

You see, pervert, it's not just gender identity; it's this revisionist bullshit in general - you a$$holes apply it to pretty much every f*cking thing: advertising, classrooms, film, etc. 

If you're a man in a dress who thinks he's a woman then there should be zero penalty for calling him "sir" and directing him to the mens room. 

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, Deluge said:

When I ask whether someone should be penalized for not accepting gender identity, I'm not referring to things like harassment, I'm referring to someone who refuses to use pronouns for himself or someone who refuses to acknowledge someone else's preferred identity. 

What do you think?

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.  

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

You see, pervert, it's not just gender identity; it's this revisionist bullshit in general - you a$$holes apply it to pretty much every f*cking thing: advertising, classrooms, film, etc. 

I've yet to have it applied to me I guess. In my occupation boats are still she's and captain's are their Masters. It even says Master on official government certificates.

It's almost an anachronism in this day and age.

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

If you're a man in a dress who thinks he's a woman then there should be zero penalty for calling him "sir" and directing him to the mens room. 

You sure seem to run headlong into this issue a lot. Do you go looking for it or something? You remind of Mr Canada and his preoccupation with Pride parades.

Any it's just called the head on a boat.

[Deluge]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

Penalized by employers, lawmakers, administrators anyone who could cause damage to someone. 

[Deluge]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. I've yet to have it applied to me I guess. In my occupation boats are still she's and captain's are their Masters. It even says Master on official government certificates.

2. It's almost an anachronism in this day and age.

3. You sure seem to run headlong into this issue a lot. Do you go looking for it or something? You remind of Mr Canada and his preoccupation with Pride parades.

Any it's just called the head on a boat.

1. You don't watch movies or Netfilx, or commercials or anything that depicts human beings since about 2015? 

2. Your acceptance of revisionism is part of the problem.

3. I do look for it, and guess what? That's right, it's pretty much every f*cking where, and clueless people like you help exacerbate the problem. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

You won't comments at all. The simple fact of the matter is when people hold you to account for what you say you run and hide because your opinion is inconsistent and contradictory. You are a hypocrite like many on the left. What an embarrassment

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Penalized by employers, lawmakers, administrators anyone who could cause damage to someone. 

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.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...you certainly believe they should be punished for not complying with others' demands. 

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.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't.

You seem to be of two minds in this regard then. 

Quote

You keep making up opinions of mine despite evidence to the contrary.

nope. I even give you clear chances to clarify your position when there seems to be a conflict and you never do. You offer one opinion and then a contrary one and when challenged on it you go silent.  So blaming me is pretty silly. 

 

Quote

I don't understand it at all. =

Of course you do. You just did it in this very thread. When you  contradicted a previous position of yours i very civilly suggested maybe i understood  and gave you the chance to clarify and state that my understanding was wrong. 

which you refused to do. Because my original understanding was correct, and you didn't want to have to say otherwise. 

So you chose to ignore me hoping that it would go away. 
When it didn't you decided to go to your NEXT favorite tactic, pretending to be the victim here. 

But it was your own actions that lead to this. I correctly pointed out your previous position and gave you a chance to advise if that was wrong and it was your choice to let your original position stand. Now it's 'boo hoo hoo, how could it possibly come to this!?!? I don't understaaaaaaand!"   You understand just fine. 

 

I'm sure your cheap debate tactics work great on the elementary school playground at recess. But as reasonable adults see through that kind of cheap trick.  Maybe next time just be honest instead of playing games, especially while people are still being polite. 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

1. You don't watch movies or Netfilx, or commercials or anything that depicts human beings since about 2015?

Sure.

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

2. Your acceptance of revisionism is part of the problem.

Well, they forced me to go to free school back almost 60 years ago see.

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

3. I do look for it, and guess what? That's right, it's pretty much every f*cking where, and clueless people like you help exacerbate the problem. 

I've suggested you people  advocate for education systems that are more like a Klingon military prep schools - to beat the sort of sense you're talking about into kids at an earlier age.

What do you think?

[Deluge]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. Sure.

2. Well, they forced me to go to free school back almost 60 years ago see.

3. I've suggested you people  advocate for education systems that are more like a Klingon military prep schools - to beat the sort of sense you're talking about into kids at an earlier age.

4. What do you think?

1. Then you've seen the DEI slop on screen. That shit has got to go. What do you think? 

2. Now you're blaming your schools. You zombies will point at anything except yourselves. lol

3. You think teaching kids traditional values is like Klingon barbarianism? Which dumbass told you that?

4. I think you're a chump.  

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 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.

2. Lawmaker - they can't legislate attitudes towards transgender, and any attempt to do so is thought control and therefore impractical and wrong.

3. Administrator - I would need more context on what you mean.

4. "cause damage" - is a very subjective term.

5. 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

6. 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.

1. You're saying pronouns and uniforms are equally important to a company. They're not. Pronouns feed into the notion that some women have penises, which is complete bullshit. 

2. Be more specific. I mean, it looks like you're saying that you can't legislate against gender identity either. 

3. Just anyone who has the power to make your life difficult. 

4. Fines, firing, jail time, etc. 

5. So what you're really trying to say is get the hell out of the way of the tranny agenda. 

6. There is no room for gender identity - it's based on complete delusion. 

 

Edited May 28 by Deluge

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. Then you've seen the DEI slop on screen. That shit has got to go. What do you think? 

Change the channel.

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

2. Now you're blaming your schools. You zombies will point at anything except yourselves. lol

I'm a white man, a government certified Master...they put me in charge of women and people of colour and tell them to follow the Master's command. It even says to on their certificates.

What exactly do you want me to do? I mean, am I not already the epitome of what you want to see in the workplace?

There's people I have to answer too as well you know.

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

3. You think teaching kids traditional values is like Klingon barbarianism? Which dumbass told you that?

No I just think a Klingons approach would be more conducive to the traditional values you want to see.

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

4. I think you're a chump.

A Klingon would probably think you're acting like a homo.

Edited May 28 by eyeball

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. Change the channel.

2. I'm a white man, a government certified Master...they put me in charge of women and people of colour and tell them to follow the Master's command. It even says to on their certificates.

What exactly do you want me to do? I mean, am I not already the epitome of what you want to see in the workplace?

There's people I have to answer too as well you know.

3. No I just think a Klingons approach would be more conducive to the traditional values you want to see.

4. A Klingon would probably think you're acting like a homo.

1. Not enough - the shit's everywhere. 

2. It's good. Whites settled your country just like they settled ours, only you don't have the equivalent of the Naturalization Act of 1790. 

3. No, just a normal, humane approach will suffice with the operative word being "normal".  

4. No, that's you. You're the cucks who turned Star Trek into a homo festival. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

1. You're saying pronouns and uniforms are equally important to a company. They're not. Pronouns feed into the notion that some women have penises, which is complete bullshit. 

2. Be more specific. I mean, it looks like you're saying that you can't legislate against gender identity either. 

3. Just anyone who has the power to make your life difficult. 

4. Fines, firing, jail time, etc. 

5. So what you're really trying to say is get the hell out of the way of the tranny agenda. 

6. There is no room for gender identity - it's based on complete delusion. 

 

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.

 

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

 

Just out of curiosity, and I don't expect you to answer because I know you don't like being exposed for your hypocrisy, but giving your statements here with regards to employers does that mean you are also in favor of Quebec laws that forbid religious expression in the workplace with legal consequence?