Posts by bohm

29

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor in

jw
friends

listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

hope some of you get a chance to listen.

bohm

Simon:

It's hard to prove what will happen under any particular law, we can only point out what the law says and scenarios that it would appear to cover

I agree, that's why I tried to google scholarly opinion on what the law did and I could not find something that supported Jordans interpretation. That the items in the bill are already in effect (and Canada is not an Orwellian nightmare) seems to heavily contradict Jordans interpretation.

The issue with the HRC is the combination of the inclusion of certain things as a hate crime combined with their lack of accountability and normal legal protections.

Let me try to understand your worries. You are saying that if someone in Canada asks me to address him as Zip, and I refuses (for instance, I do not use pronouns to address him but rather use his name), that will now be a hate crime under canadian law?

Yes, "hate crime" is a particular legal category and so called mis-gendering should not be included in the definition of it.

So you are claiming that mis-gendering is now a hate crime in canada?

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

I disagree with that part. I think the lecturing comes from both the hollywood types AND the ground-level leftists so it becomes a wall of sound that just turns regular people off. Seriously, look at this shit:

At the core of the rhetoric of BLM is the idea that "the police" (notice: one, uniform blob) can and should be evaluated based on the actions of individual police officers in individual cases; the cases are then selected as those where the police officer acted (or is thought to have acted) in the least favorable way. I don't think that is sound.

Now we are evaluating "the march" and "the liberals", and we got a tweet with some bullsh*t....

How do we evaluate a movement like the people in the march?

29

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor in

jw
friends

listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

hope some of you get a chance to listen.

bohm

Simon: The HRC and the particular bill are two separate issues. I focus on the legal implications of the bill which is what is front and center in JPs first video and if those implications are as JP claim they are. I do that because it is something which is easier to evaluate and get a black/white answer to. So far JPs claim does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.

Regarding the HRC, I am not 100% sure what the HRC can actually do and what it in fact does. Most of what I have to go by are general concerns like those you list, but I don't know what those concerns translate to in practice (i.e. what have the HRC actually done in real cases to real people).

Oh, you called me "he" but I self-identify as "Ze" today, that's a hate crime and someone should pay me money. Nothing to do with being given a C on my last paper ..

Can you provide any evidence that I can be charged with a hate crime for not calling you Ze? I mean objectively true evidence and not the opinions of JP.

"Hate crime" is a very particular legal category, as I understand it I would first have to commit a serious crime, for instance, I would have to be raping you and THEN calling you "Ze" while I did that before THAT could be considered a hatecrime. And as I understand it even using the wrong pronoun during the rape would not ACTUALLY make the rape a hate crime.

That would of course have to be tested by the courts...

29

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor in

jw
friends

listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

hope some of you get a chance to listen.

bohm

She is no doubt coming at things from a legal perspective and what could be prosecuted in court.
The problem is that the human rights tribunals are like judicial committees - they make the rules, they decide the outcome and they are stacking the deck to give themselves more power and they can and do use that power to shut people up.

I am concerned about what the legal implications are and if they are what Jordan claims they are... not seeing much evidence in support of that so far.

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

Of course. But if you are protesting a general concept, then it should be made general.
To ignore the worse offenders of the thing you are apparently so concerned about you organized a big march to demonstrate against it seems ... well, retarded.

Okay but this has implications. First off we can probably agree that the women and men participating in the march did so for many, diverse reasons. Let's suppose Jill participated in the march because she think that a person who makes the remark Trump did is not suited to hold office (she does not like her daughters hearing that language, plain and simple, and she knows from her experience with HR that this type of language would never fly in a normal workplace) and because she is very concerned with climate change.

Just so I get it right: Jill acknowledge that women are treated horribly in the middle east, something she is aware of but does little about. She is mainly concerned with Trump because Trump happens to be her president. That's why she finally went to the streets today in her first protest.

Does Jills actions and motives also make you angry?

I predict the next one will be to support the right of women to accept Sharia law and they'd probably get takers.

Do you want to bet 100$?

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

I just heard a new word today -- alternative facts -- Is that worth protesting even though things are no doubt worse in north korea?

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

OK, so we can cross another thing off the "what was this about?" list then eh?

Yes, "like to touch vaginas" is not on the list...

Because I value free-speech and I don't want them to turn us into North Korea.

So if you observe something happening locally that you don't like, then it is okay to protest that even though the same type of things are happening elsewhere in the world only much worse?

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

Simon: First of the issue is not if DT likes to touch vaginas. 90% of all men do. That's not what he said and not why people are concerned.

Second off, yes, I will grant you this: it might on some view be hypocritical of me to be concerned about e.g. trafic laws in my own country when there is child labor in India. Or to be concerned about climate change when people live in cities with toxic air. Or care how long time my kids have to wait to see a doctor when children are dying of starvation in Congo.

But that argument cuts both ways:

Why do you worry that some SJWs try to limit free speech when people don't have the basic freedoms in north korea?

If Women shouldn't protest their own president because of what goes on in Theran that rule got to apply to us all.

401

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon in

it seems like mobilizing after the election, which seems pointless.

i keep hearing demands for equal rights but don't understand what rights they are missing exactly.. normally a march is to show the support (and potential votes) for a cause, but ... votes for what?

... and the election happened already.. is anyone else confused?

bohm

I can't square the circle that people feel so strongly about something such as the language he used about women that they are willing to take a day out, pay to travel all that way, wear a silly hat, listen to polticrap by washed up old hags like madonna and wail that Clinton was not elected ... with the fact that Clinton and her husband also have a terrible record when it comes to treating women.
I can't see how people find what Trump said so, so crushingly terrible, yet can turn a blind eye to the absolute terrible crimes being committed against women even in the west by certain ideologies and then use the march to promote symbolisms of those oppressive misogynistic regimes.

Suppose your school has a teacher, and that teacher is really horrible to the kids (let's say he bully the kids) but the school protects the teacher for some reason

So you and all the parents write a letter of concern to the school about what that teacher is doing and why you think he is not suited to be a teacher.

The school writes you back using your exact argument: Kids in Moghadishu don't even go to schools. Kids in Gambia are beaten by teachers. Kids in this or that place are not protected against sexual molestation: "yet [you] can turn a blind eye to the absolute terrible crimes being committed against ~~women~~ children".

Would that response really convince you?

Why do we have to bring Bill Clinton into the picture? Why is Islam even relevant? Sure, you can find a protester here or there who are hypocritical, but you can't use that as an argument to dismiss the concerns of the many protesters who simply wanted to protest a person being put into power who bragged about groping women or is a climate-change denialist. You allow yourself to be concerned about that, why is it wrong for a woman to go onto the streets and protest it?

29

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor in

jw
friends

listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

hope some of you get a chance to listen.

bohm

Simon:

That's a good writeup but just to clarify something about Peterson. AFAIK he does not argue that a man can't be a women or vice versa. He argues that the overwhelming majority are one or the other and that the few who are not or think they are the wrong one from birth still want to be one or the other.

I know this was not quite what I said but that was also what I meant. It is very tiresome to get all the corner cases in this debate.

The law is vague but suggests that we have to call people what they want, using made-up pronouns like "Ze", which can change by the hour and if someone gets it wrong, they can be charged with a hate crime based on the person claiming their feelings were hurt.

I know that is what he said in his first video, however, I have been able to find no evidence at all this is in fact so.

Did you watch the debate he had with the lawyer? She had professional experience with these type of legal matters and she 100% contradicted him that this was the correct interpretation of the law --- claims that he did not dispute. According to her he is absolutely wrong on the made-up pronoun bit.