Current Affairs The New Middle

[verreauxi]

As Prev said earlier, the issue isn't forbidding hate-speech, the issue is enforcing use of specific terms to describe something which isn't necessarily biologically true.

Enforcing use of language to suit a social trend is the authoritarianism part. Enforcing the disuse of hate terms to protect people is not. The concept of fluid gender identity is very young and itself fluid, making ever-changing amendments inevitable, which will only muddy the waters.

We both agree people are free to identify with whatever term or group they wish, and they should not be discriminated for it. But neither should they be able, by law, to force others to use their language. For people of dark skin I, for example, don't use the term 'people of colour' as not so long ago we were told 'coloured' was no longer acceptable (before that it was the polite accepted term). It's an ever-changing landscape and bully to those who want to play that game, but I don't and neither do the general populace.

Most people prefer not to think about a person's skin colour at all, and I thought we were almost there not so long ago. Same with gay/trans/etc...the internet is breeding specialist scenes which explode onto the mainstream. All fine and dandy until our language becomes enforced to fit the scene, which breeds resentment and rewinds social progress.

The point is by us not enforcing language of specialist scenes were are not discriminating against people, we still value them as people of equal worth to ourselves. But if we allowed the use of hate-terms we would be allowing discrimination, those terms clearly value the target as of lower worth. Not the same thing.

Have you heard of newspeak?

But it is not forcing anything. I've said this now a few times here. I can only repaste my post to Prevenger regarding the Canadian Bar Association and their views on the law. To quote them:

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression. Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

More here:

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

 

[dholliday]

But it is not forcing anything. I've said this now a few times here. I can only repaste my post to Prevenger regarding the Canadian Bar Association and their views on the law. To quote them:

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression. Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

More here:

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

I did actually read that. I also read this:

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

After gender identity and expression were added to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission reported a growing awareness that discriminating on these grounds is against the law. Commissions have confirmed that explicitly listing these grounds supports their mandate to inform the public of their rights and obligations.

We have also seen legal education respond to amendments such as these. Bulletins, newsletters, and textbooks are sent out and updated to account for statutory amendments. Training sessions and conferences are held to inform legal professionals and others of the new provisions.

and watched this:



So you appreciate there is room for interpretation of what "gender identity and expression" being lawfully "protected" means.

Hence the debate.

 

[verreauxi]

I did actually read that. I also read this:

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/


and watched this:



So you appreciate there is room for interpretation of what "gender identity and expression" being lawfully "protected" means.

Hence the debate.

Interesting, since I've found several sources that say there isn't any criminal repurcussions regarding the refusal to use a gender-neutral pronoun. But I will concede that that video seems to paint a dire picture of what you can/can't say.

 

[ilikecheese]

Just not sure there is a middle on the internet. The dictionary has very clear definitions of words like vetting and extremist. When the language is ignored over an agenda, the middle simply doesn't exist.

 

[Harryflashman]

I’m not sure what it says about the new middle or the need for it with the failure of many democrats including members of the democratic black caucus and organisers of the women’s march who were present to condemn the comments by louis farrakhan.

 

[dholliday]

Just not sure there is a middle on the internet. The dictionary has very clear definitions of words like vetting and extremist. When the language is ignored over an agenda, the middle simply doesn't exist.

What is ignored? Those in the middle just seek to understand stuff and don't care on what side of the political spectrum the truth is.

I’m not sure what it says about the new middle or the need for it with the failure of many democrats including members of the democratic black caucus and organisers of the women’s march who were present to condemn the comments by louis farrakhan.

The world needed Malcolm X a lot more than we needed Farrakhan. That's probably why he was assassinated.

 

[verreauxi]

I still don't think this is as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. Mostly because it is very unclear as to what is actually punishable versus what is an issue of free speech. It seems there are two levels to this issue: 1) the general principle of a law in terms of being (ostensibly) forced to say something you may not want to...and I can understand why people would react to such a law, though I do not think it will result in the authoritarian scenarios that Peterson and others claim; and 2) the law in practice, which is unlikely to ever yield a criminal conviction due to the murkiness of how to interpret it. And I still feel Peterson went about it the wrong way in terms of saying something productive versus saying something divisive and provocative.

 

[verreauxi]

Regarding some of the discussion here, this is pretty funny!

 

[dholliday]

I still don't think this is as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. Mostly because it is very unclear as to what is actually punishable versus what is an issue of free speech. It seems there are two levels to this issue: 1) the general principle of a law in terms of being (ostensibly) forced to say something you may not want to...and I can understand why people would react to such a law, though I do not think it will result in the authoritarian scenarios that Peterson and others claim; and 2) the law in practice, which is unlikely to ever yield a criminal conviction due to the murkiness of how to interpret it. And I still feel Peterson went about it the wrong way in terms of saying something productive versus saying something divisive and provocative.

I think I agree with that, except I'd add that the law as it's worded 'empowers' those on the extremist-Left (like perhaps the lawyer from the video) to push language onto others. Not everyone will want to risk the vagueness of the law so perhaps will even meekly comply - i.e. i don't want any trouble/i don't want to be viewed as transphobic.

It's a whole load of steps until wordlessly deleting news articles ala Winston Smith but it's a step nonetheless.

 

[ilikecheese]

What is ignored? Those in the middle just seek to understand stuff and don't care on what side of the political spectrum the truth is.

Actual definitions of English words. You did it yourself in the Trump thread labelling the left's progressive identity politics as regressive.

We can argue the merits of progress, but by definition regressive is an inappropriate choice of words.

Regressive identity politics would be the game being played by the far right.

 

[Pettifogger]

Actual definitions of English words. You did it yourself in the Trump thread labelling the left's progressive identity politics as regressive.

We can argue the merits of progress, but by definition regressive is an inappropriate choice of words.

Regressive identity politics would be the game being played by the far right.

The problem here is that you're apparently willing to label any identity politics of the left as "progressive" regardless of their impact or whether they're in any way an advancement.

If we're using a definition of "progressive" that merely relies on movement, rather than movement in any particularly beneficial or reasoned or bettered way, I might concede the point. To the extent you're labeling the left's progressive identity politics as necessarily to the betterment of society, I think you're doing exactly what you complain of (abusing language).

 

[ilikecheese]

The problem here is that you're apparently willing to label any identity politics of the left as "progressive" regardless of their impact or whether they're in any way an advancement.

If we're using a definition of "progressive" that merely relies on movement, rather than movement in any particularly beneficial or reasoned or bettered way, I might concede the point. To the extent you're labeling the left's progressive identity politics as necessarily to the betterment of society, I think you're doing exactly what you complain of (abusing language).

The problem here is that you're apparently willing to label any identity politics of the left as "progressive" regardless of their impact or whether they're in any way an advancement.

If we're using a definition of "progressive" that merely relies on movement, rather than movement in any particularly beneficial or reasoned or bettered way, I might concede the point. To the extent you're labeling the left's progressive identity politics as necessarily to the betterment of society, I think you're doing exactly what you complain of (abusing language).

As I said we can discuss the merits of progress. But by definition (second in this case) progressive is the right adjective.

pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective

1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
   
   
2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

 

[dholliday]

Actual definitions of English words. You did it yourself in the Trump thread labelling the left's progressive identity politics as regressive.

We can argue the merits of progress, but by definition regressive is an inappropriate choice of words.

Regressive identity politics would be the game being played by the far right.

Disagree. Here's the definition of regressive:

returning to a former or less developed state; characterized by regression.

Remember when we weren't obsessed with people's group identity? Nice times. We've since devolved to a "less developed state" whereby we split people into groups instead of valueing them as individuals. This is purest regression. History is full of strife when we put people in groups.

pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective

1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
   
   
2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

I would argue identity politics is an illiberal idea. Thus it doesn't fit the definition of progressive.

 

[tsubaki]

Actual definitions of English words. You did it yourself in the Trump thread labelling the left's progressive identity politics as regressive.

We can argue the merits of progress, but by definition regressive is an inappropriate choice of words.

Regressive identity politics would be the game being played by the far right.

All identity politics is regressive; its like arguing theology in that you have to sign up to a nonsensical concept (in this case race) first in order to frame your argument. Even to engage in it is to walk blindly into the same trap that the US ruling class has set since the country was founded, of splitting the people down into racial groups and pitting them against one another.

The US is a state that is arguably racist, with an unquestionably racist past. You cannot deal with that by basing your response to it on racial grounds.

 

[Prevenger17]

I still don't think this is as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. Mostly because it is very unclear as to what is actually punishable versus what is an issue of free speech.

It might not be, but it could be. It's a unique movement that comes with prescribed speech, and we haven't really seen that before in equality movements. I feel like we're both repeating ourselves a lot here, but I can't stress enough how important it is to note he is an academic. He gets barracked by very extreme left wing people regularly, often shouted down to the point of silence, so he bears witness the potential results of this far more often than you or I. There's one video where he's speaking to small group outside a university and he gets harassed by a woman with a video camera asking him repeatedly why he won't use her pronoun. It really is that unhinged.

Discrimination, while not always easy to identify, has markers in the use of certain words, the employment of certain actions or patterns. With Gender-fluid movements, there is a vague new form of discrimination which can be rooted in not using certain words, not employing certain actions or patterns. It's hard to foresee how that might manifest itself in future and, hopefully, it will be as small and localised as you're saying. But it's not nothing and, if I was in his shoes, I would want to see that potential addressed in any legislation.