flametitan

He began wondering

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Some day I’ll post the amazing story of my most-religious-ever best friend from high school. Sealed the deal for me, as to why I’ll never become a Christian. It’s a lengthy story so it will take at least an hour of free time to get it all down.

That bad, huh? I feel you. Most of the religious people I know are chill, but the few bad apples I’ve met really sour the mood on it.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I don’t see religion as an overall net positive or negative. It simply is, for better or worse.

That’s pretty much how I feel, too. Thoughts and feelings regarding religion and the church tend to be more individualistic, rather than seeing it as a monolithic entity. I’ve met chill religious folk, and I’ve met radicals. Heck, I’ve met both groups from within the same sect.

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Another example of Christian opposition to freedom:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/09/anti-lgbtq-protesters-swarmed-library-protest-drag-queen-story-hour/

If you call the normalization of mental illnesses freedom, then sure. Gender dysphoria is contagious among certain segments of the population, so I have a hard time believing that it’s normal and healthy to believe you’re in the wrong body. What happened to telling people to be happy with their body and the way they are?

Oh, buddy… Are you sure you want to have this conversation with me? We’re going to have this conversation. ROGD is a sham based upon a faulty study that was quickly rescinded. In particular, it only ever surveyed the parents of the teens, who have met on a “support forum.” In this context, of course it seemed sudden; teens are notorious for hiding things from their parents, especially if they believe the parents would be unnaccepting of it.

If you asked the teens themselves, they’re going to give you a far different answer. Probably something along the lines of, “It felt like something was off about me for the longest time, but it wasn’t until I met other people like me that I began to piece it all together and accept it.” It’s not that these teens are “catching the Trans,” it’s that they’re starting to meet others and not feel so alone about it.

JEDIT: Oh, and I missed that you typed that out in response to people protesting drag queens. Drag. Queens. Believe it or not, Drag performers are not trans people. Well, not inherently. There are definitely trans people who either enjoy drag, or use it to explore their own feelings of themselves. However, just as many, if not more drag performers are cisgender, and just use drag as a performative art.

Jay said:

flametitan said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It is too vague. I think they’re implying calls for genocide, calls for violence, or things of that nature. Either way, that’s a problem with hate speech laws in general, not C-16.

My understanding for why it’s vague is that if it’s well defined, it becomes easier to loophole either as prosecution or defendant. The law is worded such the way it is so that a judge and Jury can determine whether or not a particular incident falls under hate speech without having to set precedent.

Vague laws that affect what people can and can’t say are exactly my concern. I don’t want anyone to be harassed and I think you have to be a special kind of jackass to deliberately misgender a trans person, but the law should be absolutely clear about what is and is not okay so it can enforced properly and without too much interpretation.

Ok, I just went back and checked, as I realized that I don’t think any of us went to double check the Canadian Criminal Code.

We’re literally all at this point making assumptions of how vague the Criminal Code is based on Pleasehello’s confusion over a statement made by the Canadian Bar Association, which is not the criminal Code.

Give me a minute to actually review the sections of the criminal code affected by C-16 before we get too definitive over how vague it is.

JEDIT: Alright, so, the affected sections of the law are Sections 318, Section 319 (as 319 refers to 318 for its definition) and subparagraph 718.2a(i) As well as including it in the definition of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 318, and Section 319 is directly below it: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93
section 718: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-181.html#h-264
Canadian Human Rights Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

It should be noted, however, that the CHR only applies to federal matters. The provinces each have their own anti-discrimination acts. For example, In my province of British Columbia, discrimination is handled under The Human Rights Code: http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01

Sections 318 and 319 are actually pretty clear as to what counts as prosecutable (promoting hate might be a little vague, my understanding is that it’s advocacy of discrimination or saying that a group deserves to be oppressed).

moviefreakedmind said:

It is too vague. I think they’re implying calls for genocide, calls for violence, or things of that nature. Either way, that’s a problem with hate speech laws in general, not C-16.

My understanding for why it’s vague is that if it’s well defined, it becomes easier to loophole either as prosecution or defendant. The law is worded such the way it is so that a judge and Jury can determine whether or not a particular incident falls under hate speech without having to set precedent.

Jay said:
For every analysis that says C-16 is harmless, there’s one that says it isn’t.

I called it the “pronoun law” because it’s sometimes referenced that way. I understand it’s not literally about pronouns, but it has the potential to be used to defend their use and punish those who mis-gender.

All I know is that activism is slowly replacing reason on the left and seeing what it’s doing to the tech community right now is enough to make me leery of any law that encourages more of it.

Hi there, I’m someone who’s affected by C-16. Can I interject a moment to say: No, the law does not cover misgendering, unless said misgendering is used to advocate genocide, or to incite/inspire other forms of hate crimes. It is an ammendment to the law that grants federal levels of protections from discrimination on the basis of Gender Identity and expression. It adds no new language beyond that. That is to say, Trans people have no perks from this that any other protected class doesn’t.

On top of that, what are we defining as misgendering? If it’s a matter of not knowing any better, whether because of bad first impressions or because the person misgendered isn’t out yet, pretty much no one is arguing for that to be illegal, because that’s absurd and impossible. Are we talking about someone who made an honest slip up and apologizes for it? Again, pretty much no trans person I know wants that illegal, because it’s absurd to expect people to be absolutely perfect.

Are we talking about a case where someone refuses to correct themselves after being told otherwise, or even doubles down on it? Then yeah, they’re being a dick, and might fall into harassment. If it does become a harassment case, however, there’s usually more involved than just misgendering.

pleasehello said:

Wait, so maybe I wasn’t completely off-base. The CBA seems to take a broader interpretation of the law that I would oppose. I don’t think we need laws to protect people from being humiliated or offended. Am I reading that correctly?

My understanding is it’s less, “aww, they called me a loser, I feel bad now,” and more, “Hey, they consider me a lesser form of human due to something I can’t control, and are treating me as such.”

And I really don’t see the distinction they are trying to make here. It’s okay to express hateful views, but if a member of a protected class is exposed to those hateful views, then it’s not okay? This seems vague and confused.

From what I’m understanding it as, it’s, “You can debate whether trans inclusive bathroom policies make it easier for men to assault women, but you should try to avoid insinuating Trans people are all sexual perverts who want to invade women’s spaces to rape them.”

EDIT: Actually, for an example of an incident that did happen, there was a guy in Alberta who used the relatively lax process of getting your gender designation changed on your ID in order to save money on car insurance. That’s a situation where you can have a meaningful discussion on how loose should these documents be, or if adjusting insurance prices based on gender is fair either. However, making the statement that Trans people are all just frauds trying to save on insurance premiums would push into the questionable zone of whether it’s hate speech or not.

moviefreakedmind said:

pleasehello said:

Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.

Not at all. Canadian Bill C-16 only added transgenderism and gender identity to the list of characteristics that you aren’t legally allowed to discriminate against. The same law had already been on the books in the province that Peterson lived in for years before C-16 hit the federal stage. Needless to say, nothing bad happened to Peterson. He claims that the bill is too vague and could lead to all manner of horrifying things happening to him, including people being censored for “criticizing someone’s fashion,” which is not true at all. The lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association even came out and debunked all of the claims that Peterson made about this bill. The beautiful irony is that not one time was Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech inhibited in any way by the Canadian government or his university, and now Jordan Peterson is the one that is trying to put a stop to people’s freedom to speak out against him. He is the only character in this story that has actually taken strides to hinder free expression.

Yep, you hit it on the head. Basically that law is only to say that I cannot be evicted or fired because of my gender identity. You’re not committing a crime to misgender me in Canada; you’re just being an asshole.

The Midnight – Shadows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGwtkJaQ9n0

A friend introduced me to them, and I’ve just been really enjoying listening to The Midnight and other artists of the genre.

Tobar said:

SilverWook said:

Did George actually say that?

Sadly.

I always thought it was a parody of that scene from Batman v Superman (as I never heard the phrase before 2016), but I guess I was wrong.

Well, I’m in a fairly literal case of it; I live somewhere between all those fires in BC.

Haven’t had to evacuate like last year, luckily, but the smoke is a pain.

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

I should probably comment on the Alex Jones article, as that’s kinda relevant to me.

The sad part is that it likely isn’t a sign of hypocrisy. If anything, he probably watches it because he hates trans people so much. Fetishizing what you hate is nothing new; it’s the main reason why people who fetishize trans women are some of the most dangerous individuals to deal with. They are attracted to our bodies, but hate who we are, and the conflicting emotions (especially if we do have sex with them) often leads to violence, if not murder.

You’re right, but I do think that there is hypocrisy inherent in fetishizing something that you hate. It’s similar to how Ted Haggard, the anti-gay Christian preacher, was having sex with male prostitutes regularly even though he was constantly demonizing gay people. It doesn’t mean that he hated gay people any less than he claimed to, it’s just that he was also a massive hypocrite which makes him all the more despicable. Same thing with J. Edgar Hoover persecuting and terrorizing gay Americans even though he was likely gay himself. Alex Jones watching and enjoying transgender porn even though he’s constantly demonizing and screaming about how unnatural and evil transgender people are makes him even more disgusting than he already is.

I think where we’re coming from are slightly different takes of Hypocrisy. In a strict sense of not living up to their words and standards, that is true. I find that there’s sometimes the connotation that someone who’s a hypocrite doesn’t necessarily believe what they say, though, which is what I’m trying to argue against.

It is fully possible to truly believe the vile things you say, despite having an attraction that way. If anything, the vile things you believe might further the taboo and rush of that fetish, while the shame of being into that fetish further fuels the hate. It’s an Ouroboros of hate and objectifying attraction, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe what he says.

So while he’s hypocritical in the sense of his actions not matching what one would initially expect from his words, he isn’t a hypocrite in the sense that this reveals some aspect of his personality that contradicts his world views.

I should probably comment on the Alex Jones article, as that’s kinda relevant to me.

The sad part is that it likely isn’t a sign of hypocrisy. If anything, he probably watches it because he hates trans people so much. Fetishizing what you hate is nothing new; it’s the main reason why people who fetishize trans women are some of the most dangerous individuals to deal with. They are attracted to our bodies, but hate who we are, and the conflicting emotions (especially if we do have sex with them) often leads to violence, if not murder.

Mrebo said:

I think the anti- “thoughts and prayers” meme is more tired than the condolences people offer. Complaining about expressions of sympathy gets zero traction in trying to convince people of policy views.

Here’s the thing: People (aside from mfm) are generally fine with prayer and condolences. What people are complaining about is that the people who have the power to do something about it (politicians) refuse to do something about it. “Thoughts and Prayers,” is a non-answer designed to pacify the masses, rather than anything sincere.

SilverWook said:

I think most people were expecting Anakin to be put in the Vader suit at the end. Where we got stiffed is we didn’t get to see Vader do much of anything. Vader was so prominent in the advertising and merchandising, that the fact he was barely in the movie was a bit of a letdown.

I sort of regret never trying these as I just didn’t want to think of Anakin burning over breakfast.

Is it just me, or does it say, “wild gerry filling,” in the corner?

I’m hoping this isn’t real, but…

http://planettransgender.com/achille-isd-parents-threaten-transgender-student/?cn-reloaded=1

NeverarGreat said:

Mrebo said:

This article helped me understand the intense dislike some have for Jordan Peterson.

I read that entire article and still have no idea what this Peterson guy is on about or why people dislike him.

The easiest way to put it is to say that he’s the conservative version of Neil deGrasse Tyson, and disliked by the left for much the same reason as any other conservative pundit. Not sure how his dislike characterizes some inherent weakness of the left.

My cousins had an n64 and we’d play mario kart when visiting them.

That was about it for my experience with pre wii Nintendo consoles.

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

to them[, heterosexuality] is a structure built to reinforce misogyny.

I don’t understand how that is supposed to work.

I won’t pretend to understand the ins and outs of it, but to my understanding, it has a bit to do with the culture of the 60’s and 70’s (when the movement gained traction), where men were assumed to take an authoritative role and the women a subservient role in relationships, on top of the fact that marital rape was still legal at the time.

Again, I’m having a hard time finding more details on how this manifests/ gets justified in the modern day, so much as the roots of the movement, so I can’t say what forces persist their justification of these beliefs (Though I do know that they’re not necessarily held by mainstream feminism).

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

Looking through their tenets of gospel, it seems like they aren’t really about lesbians as commonly understood, either (women being attracted to women,) so much as lesbian feminism, which seems to be more about rejecting heterosexuality as a misogynist structure.

I honestly wonder how many of those women are genuine lesbians as opposed to misandrists with internalized heterophobia.

I’m not going to go into the misandry/heterophobia subject; however, there’s a reason why it’s called political lesbianism. The group is explicitly defined as using lesbianism as a means to escape heterosexuality, which to them is a structure built to reinforce misogyny. They consider themselves “lesbian by choice,” and at some of the more extreme ends reject sexuality altogether.

Unfortunately, I need to find more sources on how this movement manifests in the modern era, as most of the readings I’ve found limit themselves to the perspective of the '70’s.

Warbler said:

flametitan said:

So… about that religious freedom stuff that’s been going on lately. Y’know how I said it was more a license to discriminate than anything? Well, how do we define this springing up in the wake of the religious liberty movement?

(NOTE: Despite the headline, this article is mostly about TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Lesbians themselves aren’t really a focal point.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2018/08/03/lesbians-want-a-church-of-their-own-and-irs-approves/#76bac1f621c2

Well, they have the same right to form a church as any other group.

That’s not the problem. The problem is that this is most likely TERFs just piggybacking off the religious liberty bills (bills that I disliked to begin with) as a means of justifying transphobic discrimination.

Looking through their tenets of gospel, it seems like they aren’t really about lesbians as commonly understood, either (women being attracted to women,) so much as lesbian feminism, which seems to be more about rejecting heterosexuality as a misogynist structure.

So… about that religious freedom stuff that’s been going on lately. Y’know how I said it was more a license to discriminate than anything? Well, how do we define this springing up in the wake of the religious liberty movement?

(NOTE: Despite the headline, this article is mostly about TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Lesbians themselves aren’t really a focal point.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2018/08/03/lesbians-want-a-church-of-their-own-and-irs-approves/#76bac1f621c2

moviefreakedmind said:

That’s very relatable to me. I’m lucky to make it more than a week at a job these days.

Yeah. I’m definitely going to have to get in touch with my Psychiatrist again, at any rate. Maybe finally cave and get on Disability.

Blegh. Fuck panic attacks. I had to quit my job after only two days because they were just getting worse before they were getting better. Like, nearly losing my sense of balance bad.

I know people are saying it’ll get better, but I don’t want to risk injury for that chance.

TV’s Frink said:

flametitan said:

None taken. It’s always funny to see how much drama I can cause by merely existing.

It’s a power I need to learn to control.

Like Hayden in Jumper?

I haven’t seen Jumper, but maybe?