Running Alt-Right Thread of Mockery and Hypocrisy

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hypothetical after hypothetical and no actual threats to silence him. The softest totalitarianism (!!!!) imaginable.

But a larger question: If one of his students prefers "xe"... why would a considerate professor/teacher NOT use that pronoun? I would be curious to see a serious answer to that question.

Honestly, if I was running a university an some 19-year-old whose live in suffering for years says, "hey, I don't feel comfortable as a man and have never felt comfortable, so I don't like being called 'he'." how fucking shitty are you as an old professor to be like, "FUCK YOU YOU HAVE A DICK YOU'RE 'HE'!!!!"?

For good reason. What does "individualism" even mean?

The university he works for told him to be silent, I would consider that a threat. Also, any totalitarianism is a very bad thing, we can at least agree on that. Also, Peterson has stated that he will call the student the pronoun he/she prefers, as long as he’s not compelled by law. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

Lay off Chrispy guys, he really just wants to call trans women dickgirls, what's so wrong with that?

[PeeWeeSherman 2]

Lay off Chrispy guys, he really just wants to call trans women dickgirls, what's so wrong with that?

Lulz.  That's a really fair characterization (yeah, I know it's a joke).   

[PeeWeeSherman 2]

I suppose, in this context, individualism means (stolen from someone else with all due credit)….

“If you truly account for all the categories you can apply to people then no two people will ever represent the same experience because each person represents the 'intersection' of dozens, hundreds of different traits the sum total of which defines them as an individual. By acknowledging that different traits interact, you're ceding that no two people are truly comparable and alike and thus its (sic) pretty much useless to divide them up into groups and pretend all members of said group are the same/have the same experience. Basically by defining a person by all the groups they belong to, you're defining them as an individual because they're the only person who belongs to all of said groups, making them unique.”

[bad_teammate 13220]

48 minutes ago, PeeWeeSherman said:

I suppose, in this context, individualism means (stolen from someone else with all due credit)….

“If you truly account for all the categories you can apply to people then no two people will ever represent the same experience because each person represents the 'intersection' of dozens, hundreds of different traits the sum total of which defines them as an individual. By acknowledging that different traits interact, you're ceding that no two people are truly comparable and alike and thus its (sic) pretty much useless to divide them up into groups and pretend all members of said group are the same/have the same experience. Basically by defining a person by all the groups they belong to, you're defining them as an individual because they're the only person who belongs to all of said groups, making them unique.”

Isn't the essential message of intersectional feminism that everyone is unique?

[atomheartbevo 89758]

1 hour ago, PeeWeeSherman said:

I suppose, in this context, individualism means (stolen from someone else with all due credit)….

“If you truly account for all the categories you can apply to people then no two people will ever represent the same experience because each person represents the 'intersection' of dozens, hundreds of different traits the sum total of which defines them as an individual. By acknowledging that different traits interact, you're ceding that no two people are truly comparable and alike and thus its (sic) pretty much useless to divide them up into groups and pretend all members of said group are the same/have the same experience. Basically by defining a person by all the groups they belong to, you're defining them as an individual because they're the only person who belongs to all of said groups, making them unique.”

So if I’m an Eskimo brother with somebody who belongs to all of those groups, does that mean I have to participate in those groups?

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Jordan Peterson might be compelling but he isn't using the state to do it

[safe sex 11738]

Nice to know you think trans people are pretending, Chrispy. I now know that I don't need to pay attention to your opinions. Should've realized it earlier tbh. That's on me. 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Totally on you

[bad_teammate 13220]

12 hours ago, Chrispy said:

The university he works for told him to be silent, I would consider that a threat. Also, any totalitarianism is a very bad thing, we can at least agree on that. Also, Peterson has stated that he will call the student the pronoun he/she prefers, as long as he’s not compelled by law. 

We've downgraded from "nearly lost his job" & "absolutely subject to criminal prosecution" to "uh... they told him he had to follow the law... so that's like... maybe a threat of some kind... pure totalitarianism". lol

Should a university encourage its professors to break the law and to not respect his transgendered students?

Do you know what totalitarianism is? U of T lets Peterson use his campus lectures to make money online. They don't police or reference is off-campus speech in any way. They haven't called the police on him. They don't send transcripts of his lectures of the Canadian Feminist Gestapo to get him in trouble. They told him he should follow the law and that he should respect his transgendered students. The reality, bucko, is that he should do both of those of his own volition without having to be fucking told.

Lib Fascist: "We have some transgendered students and the law says we should refer to them with these pronouns."
Kermit the Genius: "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" (for years and years)

[bad_teammate 13220]

6 hours ago, trauma babe said:

Nice to know you think trans people are pretending, Chrispy.

I don't know if that's what Chrispy believes, but it is seems to be the essential root of the issue, and it's a repeat of many other civil rights issues.

The law had to tell us to treat blacks like humans.

The law had to tell us to treat women like humans.

The law had to tell us to treat gays like humans.

The law is going to have to tell us to treat the transgendered as humans.

[Chrispy 132]

38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We've downgraded from "nearly lost his job" & "absolutely subject to criminal prosecution" to "uh... they told him he had to follow the law... so that's like... maybe a threat of some kind... pure totalitarianism". lol

Should a university encourage its professors to break the law and to not respect his transgendered students?

Do you know what totalitarianism is? U of T lets Peterson use his campus lectures to make money online. They don't police or reference is off-campus speech in any way. They haven't called the police on him. They don't send transcripts of his lectures of the Canadian Feminist Gestapo to get him in trouble. They told him he should follow the law and that he should respect his transgendered students. The reality, bucko, is that he should do both of those of his own volition without having to be fucking told.

Lib Fascist: "We have some transgendered students and the law says we should refer to them with these pronouns."
Kermit the Genius: "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" (for years and years)

He did nearly lose his job, if you’ve been in a work environment, that’s about as close as it gets. The new law lays the groundwork for his use of pronouns, or nonuse in this instance, for criminal prosecution. You may be fine with your government dictating what comes out of your mouth, but I’m sure as hell not. Thankfully we have the first amendment in this country. 

[bad_teammate 13220]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

He did nearly lose his job, if you’ve been in a work environment, that’s about as close as it gets. The new law lays the groundwork for his use of pronouns, or nonuse in this instance, for criminal prosecution.

Being told to do something is about as close as it gets to losing your job? You're being hysterical.

Quote

You may be fine with your government dictating what comes out of your mouth, but I’m sure as hell not. Thankfully we have the first amendment in this country. 

Then don't work for the government.

[Chrispy 132]

7 hours ago, trauma babe said:

Nice to know you think trans people are pretending, Chrispy. I now know that I don't need to pay attention to your opinions. Should've realized it earlier tbh. That's on me. 

The crux of the argument continues to be just out of your grasp. The point, as I’m sure you’re acutely aware, is that I’ll call anybody whatever they want, as long as it’s asked. When the government steps in and dictates my speech, that’s where I draw the line. You give me the awful impression of someone who hasn’t read the thread whatsoever. 

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Being told to do something is about as close as it gets to losing your job? You're being hysterical.

Then don't work for the government.

Yes, your boss coming into your office and telling you to shut your mouth is about as close as it gets. 

Working for the government has no bearing on on free speech, you know that. 

[bad_teammate 13220]

10 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Yes, your boss coming into your office and telling you to shut your mouth is about as close as it gets. 

By that standard, literally any communication from a boss to the employee about the requirements of the job is a threat of firing you hysterical ninny.

"You are supposed to fill the cup 3/4 full of ice before pouring the soda."
- "DON'T THREATEN TO FIRE ME YOU FUCKING TOTALITARIAN MARXIST!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Quote

Working for the government has no bearing on on free speech, you know that. 

It absolutely does in the context of the work itself. Holy shit, dude.

U of T wasn't telling JP to stop being mad at feminists online. They told him to follow the fucking law in the venue of his employment.

Edited May 5, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Chrispy 132]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

By that standard, literally any communication from a boss to the employee about the requirements of the job is a threat of firing you hysterical ninny.

"You are supposed to fill the cup 3/4 full of ice before pouring the soda."
- "DON'T THREATEN TO FIRE ME YOU FUCKING TOTALITARIAN MARXIST!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

It absolutely does in the context of the work itself. Holy shit, dude.

U of T wasn't telling JP to stop being mad at feminists online. They told him to follow the fucking law in the venue of his employment.

Absolutely, have your ever been in the workforce? 

That’s the point I’m making, thank you. U of T was compelling speech under the guidelines of the absurd law. Thank your lucky stars for the constitution.

[bad_teammate 13220]

12 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Absolutely, have your ever been in the workforce? 

Is your argument that any time any boss talks to an employee about work requirements then that employee can rationally claim to have been threatened with termination? Yes?

I mean, in a way I'm 100% down with this train of thought because it's profoundly anti-capitalist and pro-worker which makes me very excited.

Edited May 5, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Chrispy 132]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is your argument that any time any boss talks to an employee about work requirements then that employee can rationally claim to have been threatened with termination? Yes?

I mean, in a way I'm 100% down with this train of thought because it's profoundly anti-capitalist and pro-worker which makes me very excited.

A boss talking to an employee is vastly different than a boss telling them to shut their mouth, you’re smarter than this.

Your second comment is extremely damning and scary. This slave mentality I can’t understand. 

[David Dennison 18940]

Just now, Chrispy said:

A boss talking to an employee is vastly different than a boss telling them to shut their mouth, you’re smarter than this.

Your second comment is extremely damning and scary. This slave mentality I can’t understand. 

You have a job, don't you?

[Chrispy 132]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You have a job, don't you?

I’m not following.

[David Dennison 18940]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not following.

It's no coincidence that employment law used to come under the rubric of master and servant. If you have a job, you have a slave mentality. You are the submissive party in the relationship with a dominant employer.

[Chrispy 132]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's no coincidence that employment law used to come under the rubric of master and servant. If you have a job, you have a slave mentality. You are the submissive party in the relationship with a dominant employer.

I have no such mentality. I’m given a wage for my work, that goes towards sustenance for my family and freedom to buy whatever I want, you may need to look up the definition of a slave. 

Also, submissive? Dominant? It’s time for another session David. 

[David Dennison 18940]

Just now, Chrispy said:

I have no such mentality. I’m given a wage for my work, that goes towards sustenance for my family and freedom to buy whatever I want, you may need to look up the definition of a slave. 

Also, submissive? Dominant? It’s time for another session David. 

You have a slave mentality. It's OK.

[tantric superman 4667]

If you can walk out the door and quit, you aren't a slave, so having a slave mentality is pretty fucked up. 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by tantric superman

[tantric superman 4667]

Good little essay on your little tif, gents.

http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/masters-and-servants/

 

[Chrispy 132]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You have a slave mentality. It's OK.

I can leave if I choose. You’re free to indulge in the sadomasochistic lifestyle, but leave me the hell out of it.

[David Dennison 18940]

Just now, Chrispy said:

I can leave if I choose. You’re free to indulge in the sadomasochistic lifestyle, but leave me the hell out of it.

Sure you can. And there would be consequences because you have put yourself in a position of dependence. Also, I didn't say you were a slave. You have a slave mentality. Those are two different things.

Don't feel bad, though. I'm right there with you. It sucks.

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Sure you can. And there would be consequences because you have put yourself in a position of dependence. Also, I didn't say you were a slave. You have a slave mentality. Those are two different things.

Don't feel bad, though. I'm right there with you. It sucks.

That’s the point, I don’t share this supposed slave mentality. Although, you’re free to.

[David Dennison 18940]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

That’s the point, I don’t share this supposed slave mentality. Although, you’re free to.

Sure. Keep cashin' that paycheck, bruh.

We're all working class if we're getting a wage.

Edited May 5, 2018 by David Dennison

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sure. Keep cashin' that paycheck, bruh.

We're all working class if we're getting a wage.

I will, life is good. I’m about to go play golf and guess what? I don’t have to ask my master! Can you believe it? Good day sir, oh excuse me, I mean good day they. 

[bad_teammate 13220]

2 hours ago, Chrispy said:

A boss talking to an employee is vastly different than a boss telling them to shut their mouth, you’re smarter than this.

Were you hijacked by a very shitty poster over the last 2 hours, because you generally are not so fundamentally dishonest in how you present arguments. It's kind of shocking. I know you and I are very different with regard to worldview, but my take on you here (I don't know what your name was on Shag) has been someone who makes a pretty good attempt to be fair and honest in the characterization of your opponents' arguments. In these two threads we're back-and-forthing on right now, however, you're just butchering it.

I said a boss talking to an employee "about work requirements", not merely talking in general. On a larger philosophical level, you would be 100% correct to say that essentially all interactions between the powerful and powerless/less-powerful are laced with the implicit threat of termination or punishment, but your characterization of Peterson "nearly losing his job" is not supported by any facts that you have presented. When someone uses a phrase like "nearly losing his job", that is generally referring to a specific threat of termination, and there is no such evidence of that here.

As I said, if you want to take your standard for Peterson's supposed oppression and apply that to ALL workers, I am 100% down with that conversation, but you're picking and choosing in order to make The Dark Professor seem like a victim of some kind when, in reality, he's a protected-by-tenure government employee whose apparent suffering is entirely of his own creation.

[Chrispy 132]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Were you hijacked by a very shitty poster over the last 2 hours, because you generally are not so fundamentally dishonest in how you present arguments. It's kind of shocking. I know you and I are very different with regard to worldview, but my take on you here (I don't know what your name was on Shag) has been someone who makes a pretty good attempt to be fair and honest in the characterization of your opponents' arguments. In these two threads we're back-and-forthing on right now, however, you're just butchering it.

I said a boss talking to an employee "about work requirements", not merely talking in general. On a larger philosophical level, you would be 100% correct to say that essentially all interactions between the powerful and powerless/less-powerful are laced with the implicit threat of termination or punishment, but your characterization of Peterson "nearly losing his job" is not supported by any facts that you have presented. When someone uses a phrase like "nearly losing his job", that is generally referring to a specific threat of termination, and there is no such evidence of that here.

As I said, if you want to take your standard for Peterson's supposed oppression and apply that to ALL workers, I am 100% down with that conversation, but you're picking and choosing in order to make The Dark Professor seem like a victim of some kind when, in reality, he's a protected-by-tenure government employee whose apparent suffering is entirely of his own creation.

We’re getting mired in semantics and it’s getting tiresome. I could resort to tautology and continue down this path, but it seems fruitless. 

I don’t believe Peterson to be a victim and I’m sure he would claim the same. I’ve laid out my concerns over the bill and how I view it as an infringement of speech, which I believe to be valid. Anyone that complies with the aforementioned censorship and compelled speech may enjoy their shackles, but I applaud Peterson for opposing such nonsense. 

[bad_teammate 13220]

When Jordan Peterson said he would go on a hunger strike, he wasn't playing the victim?

lol fuck right off

[NameAlreadyInUse 5114]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but employers restrict speech all the fucking time, and fire employees who don’t obey. That’s not peculiar to professors af universities in Canada. 

[David Dennison 18940]

Jordan Peterson sounds like a snowflake.

 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

When Jordan Peterson said he would go on a hunger strike, he wasn't playing the victim?

lol fuck right off

He's said that? Looks like he's been on one. 

The real question is, why do you have such a hard on for a Canadian physcologist? I'm sure there's a more relevant boogeyman you can post about for some more substantive mockery.

[Chrispy 132]

6 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but employers restrict speech all the fucking time, and fire employees who don’t obey. That’s not peculiar to professors af universities in Canada. 

They restrict speech, they don’t compel it. There’s a distinction. 

[David Dennison 18940]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

They restrict speech, they don’t compel it. There’s a distinction. 

Unless, of course, it's part of the job requirement.

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Unless, of course, it's part of the job requirement.

A company slogan is not the same thing, stop being disingenuous. 

[David Dennison 18940]

This is still law in Canada, correct?

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This is still law in Canada, correct?

Yes, in Canada. They don’t have the protection of the first amendment, poor bastards.

[David Dennison 18940]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Yes, in Canada. They don’t have the protection of the first amendment, poor bastards.

They seem to be doing OK.

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They seem to be doing OK.

There’s plenty of dissent when it comes to the bill, which has been in effect for less than a year. Big brother dictating what comes out of your mouth should rightly terrify them. 

[David Dennison 18940]

Just now, Chrispy said:

There’s plenty of dissent when it comes to the bill, which has been in effect for less than a year. Big brother dictating what comes out of your mouth should rightly terrify them. 

Stuff of nightmares in a country which consistently ranks higher in freedom indexes than the United States.

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

No you see America is the only country with freedom

[Chrispy 132]

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Stuff of nightmares in a country which consistently ranks higher in freedom indexes than the United States.

 

 

Obviously not in speech.

[Chrispy 132]

31 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

No you see America is the only country with freedom

We’re the only country that has constitution defending our freedom of speech. Other nations have freedom of speech, but the laws on their books would never withstand constitutional muster in the US. We’re extremely lucky to have such iron clad protection. 

[David Dennison 18940]

12 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

We’re the only country that has constitution defending our freedom of speech. Other nations have freedom of speech, but the laws on their books would never withstand constitutional muster in the US. We’re extremely lucky to have such iron clad protection. 

At least give Dan some credit.

Quote

Americans have an effective freedom of speech equal to the people of most western, liberal democracies (for example): France, the UK, Canada, Australia, Spain, and Netherlands. Where Americans have a slight edge is in the relatively iron clad protection that comes from the First Amendment. The named nations have laws on their books that are enforced that would never withstand constitutional muster in the US.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by David Dennison

[Chrispy 132]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At least give Dan some credit.

 

In retrospect, you’re correct. He said it much more eloquently than myself. I was under the impression than common knowledge didn’t need citing; however, the Academic Integrity at Princeton University specifies that you should cite or make a footnote if an author’s point is well put, even if not verbatim.