Page 2609 of 2629 FirstFirst ... 1609210925092559259926062607260826092610261126122619 ... LastLast
Results 52,161 to 52,180 of 52575

Thread: Anthology of Gender Normative Image Oppression™ NSFW | CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE, SHITLORD

  1. #52161
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    15,124
    Cathy Newman just gave him credibility by being a fucking idiot. Peterson exposes himself as a hack within about 5 minutes of airtime provided you ask decently probing questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  2. #52162
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Cathy Newman just gave him credibility by being a fucking idiot. Peterson exposes himself as a hack within about 5 minutes of airtime provided you ask decently probing questions.
    whats the TLR about him? I watched the interview and it was cringeworthy stuff from C4. He came across as competent and in control. Hard to judge if hes talking shit from my position of ignorance and the interviewer didnt help illuminate anything other than her melon headed shitness as a journo

  3. #52163
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    15,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Cathy Newman just gave him credibility by being a fucking idiot. Peterson exposes himself as a hack within about 5 minutes of airtime provided you ask decently probing questions.
    whats the TLR about him? I watched the interview and it was cringeworthy stuff from C4. He came across as competent and in control. Hard to judge if hes talking shit from my position of ignorance and the interviewer didnt help illuminate anything other than her melon headed shitness as a journo

    He's basically very conservative. Says stuff about young men and mental health to get people on side and then has weird rants about marxist post modernism and his right to make trans people feel uncomfortable. He has a weird internet cult which basically uses his talking points to justify jokes about sending women back to the kitchen.

    He spends a lot of time misrepresenting various philosophies which have any connection to any sort of progressivism.

    Generally a bit of a hack and all around odd person who is loved by the alt right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  4. #52164

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    9,745
    A more popular smuggo? :>

  5. #52165
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    21,167
    I wholeheartedly support Jordan Peterson on his (con)quest against competely made up bullshit gender pronouns.
    2/10/17 Greatposthellpurge never forget
    23/10/17 The Greatreposteninging ?

  6. #52166

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    9,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    I wholeheartedly support Jordan Peterson on his (con)quest against competely made up bullshit gender pronouns.
    Yes because that's all it is.

  7. #52167
    Donor Spawinte's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,208

  8. #52168
    Movember 2012 I Legionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,656


    no true slav

  9. #52169
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    15,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    I wholeheartedly support Jordan Peterson on his (con)quest against competely made up bullshit gender pronouns.
    It's a dog whistle for regressive 'realism'.

    The scourge of made up pronouns is basically completely fabricated. It is such a minor issue it isn't worth giving a shit about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  10. #52170
    Movember 2012 Stoffl's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The original viennese waffle
    Posts
    21,167
    Outside of Academia ?
    Yeah
    2/10/17 Greatposthellpurge never forget
    23/10/17 The Greatreposteninging ?

  11. #52171
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,651




    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  12. #52172
    jimmychrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    I wholeheartedly support Jordan Peterson on his (con)quest against competely made up bullshit gender pronouns.
    It's a dog whistle for regressive 'realism'.

    The scourge of made up pronouns is basically completely fabricated. It is such a minor issue it isn't worth giving a shit about.
    It's apparently worth legislating about in Canadistan

  13. #52173
    Lowa [NSN]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    I wholeheartedly support Jordan Peterson on his (con)quest against competely made up bullshit gender pronouns.
    It's a dog whistle for regressive 'realism'.

    The scourge of made up pronouns is basically completely fabricated. It is such a minor issue it isn't worth giving a shit about.
    It's apparently worth legislating about in Canadistan
    Ah, thats where I remember it from, I posted a link in...some other thread...where he is on Sam Harris talking about that.
    Its for another discussion but they talk about it in the start and its fuck up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarminic View Post
    I would create a dragon made out of vaginas. Then I would create a dragon made out of dicks. Then I would have them fight to the death.

  14. #52174
    Movember 2012 I Legionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,656
    I used to feel this way until I realized that the effort for me to call someone it, she, he, or xe is equivalent and effectively zero.

  15. #52175

    Join Date
    April 30, 2011
    Location
    Bristol UK
    Posts
    333
    They. Works for all, untill they want t be inanimate its anyways

  16. #52176
    Procellus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,060
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I used to feel this way until I realized that the effort for me to call someone it, she, he, or xe is equivalent and effectively zero.
    You're right, but when the government steps in and mandates it, then I have a problem with it.

  17. #52177
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Procellus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    I used to feel this way until I realized that the effort for me to call someone it, she, he, or xe is equivalent and effectively zero.
    You're right, but when the government steps in and mandates it, then I have a problem with it.
    what exactly did they mandate?

    If they require you to telepathically know which pronouns somebody prefers, then sure, get mad

    If they require "oh, you want me to call you this? ok" then it's perfectly reasonable.

  18. #52178
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,761
    Just so people have the info this is Amendment to Bill C-16 that landed Peterson in court.

    64-65-66 Elizabeth II

    CHAPTER 13
    An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
    [Assented to 19th June, 2017]



    Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

    R.*S.*, c. H-6

    Canadian Human Rights Act

    1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

    1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

    Purpose

    2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

    1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

    2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

    Prohibited grounds of discrimination

    3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

    R.*S.*, c. C-46

    Criminal Code

    2014, c. 31, s. 12

    3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

    Definition of identifiable group

    (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

    1995, c. 22, s. 6

    4 Subparagraph 718.*2(a)*(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

    (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

    Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons

  19. #52179
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    5,790
    that interview was cringeworthy to watch
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  20. #52180
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Just so people have the info this is Amendment to Bill C-16 that landed Peterson in court.

    64-65-66 Elizabeth II

    CHAPTER 13
    An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
    [Assented to 19th June, 2017]



    Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

    R.*S.*, c. H-6

    Canadian Human Rights Act

    1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

    1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

    Purpose

    2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

    1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

    2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

    Prohibited grounds of discrimination

    3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

    R.*S.*, c. C-46

    Criminal Code

    2014, c. 31, s. 12

    3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

    Definition of identifiable group

    (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

    1995, c. 22, s. 6

    4 Subparagraph 718.*2(a)*(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

    (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

    Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
    so

    evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
    is the hinge of this, I don't see a problem

    "woops I didn't know" isn't evidence of motivation

    "fuck you I won't" is

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •