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: I still don't understand exactly what aspect of "gender misuse" JP and others are objecting to.

I think it is relevant to have a debate about hate crimes (i.e. if there should be hate crimes in the penal code), but quite frankly that only affects JP if he goes on and murder someone on campus, etc.

Could you explain in your own words what new "gender misuse" crime you are worried about?

Whenever I try to dig into that issue (and JP made it very clear that gender misuse was a very serious concern to him in his first video) the discussion is diverted into generalities...

Another way to ask this question is if this writeup of C16 is wrong:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

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

seaname: Well, I think that is exactly the relevant text.

That section does not (if you read it) introduce any new crimes. I.e. it does not make anything that was previously legal illegal. What it deals with is sentencing.

So if I am raping you, that would normally mean I would go to jail for rape. If it turns out I am raping you because you are disabled (or gay, or Hindu, etc. etc.), then 718.2(a)(i) allows the court to determine that I am performing a hate crime and that could affect the sentencing.

What the change means is that if I am raping you and that I am raping you because you are identifying yourself as a Zir, that rape could now also be considered a hate crime. Of course that would have to be proven and it is not entirely clear to me that pronoun misuse is even included in the text (it might be).

I am not sure I like the concept of hate crimes particular well but that is a separate discussion: I think if there are hate crime laws then it is very reasonable (at least, not dangerous) to extend them to the hypothetical situation where someone is targeting people who call themselves "they".

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.