happycamper Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/22/2017 at 10:28 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said: Canada passed a law that you will be subjected to fines and even incarceration if you use the wrong gender pronouns. American republicans are saving you democrats from yourselves. Man... at this point I'm just going to go ahead and propose a few fixes to the English language A) "her" and "hers" and "their" and "theirs" are the only pronouns we have. Why her and hers? Because to hell with coming up with a new word that looks like it should have been in the Starcraft manual as the proper pronoun for a conclave member, because they are good enough for a supercarrier so they are good enough for me. Also the whole "patriarchy blah blah blah" thing that's real but boring to read about B ) 'him" and "her" now solely refer to sex, not gender. Intersex? Then both are appropriate! XYY? Then you're him him! Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawlorfaithful Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Meanwhile, in America, 8 justices unanimously agree: freedom of speech +++++in rules! http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 44 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said: Meanwhile, in America, 8 justices unanimously agree: freedom of speech +++++in rules! http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute Hard to believe the morons on that court actually got something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 10 hours ago, SJSUMFA2013 said: If this is an "overreach," then so are all anti-discrimination laws. I suppose it not surprising then that conservative media has latched onto this innocuous bit of news and no one else gives a shit. Carrying a sign that says "there are only two genders" at a political rally should not be considered a criminal offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJSUMFA2013 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 46 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Carrying a sign that says "there are only two genders" at a political rally should not be considered a criminal offense. Just carry one that says, "I am a total jackass." It'll communicate the same message, and you won't risk arrest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 23 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said: Just carry one that says, "I am a total jackass." It'll communicate the same message, and you won't risk arrest! As opposed to someone like you who has no idea what words mean. Proving yet again that to be a teacher you need not have an education. gen·der ˈjendər/ noun 1. the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). "traditional concepts of gender" synonyms: sex "variables included age, income, and gender" 2. GRAMMAR (in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 48 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said: Just carry one that says, "I am a total jackass." It'll communicate the same message, and you won't risk arrest! Being a jackass should not be a criminal offense. My OP is being proven true in this thread. Thank god for the conservatives in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJSUMFA2013 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 16 minutes ago, bluerules009 said: As opposed to someone like you who has no idea what words mean. Proving yet again that to be a teacher you need not have an education. gen·der ˈjendər/ noun 1. the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). "traditional concepts of gender" synonyms: sex "variables included age, income, and gender" 2. GRAMMAR (in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex. I'm not having this debate. It's the dumbest "national conversation" we've had to have in a long time. I don't give a shit, at all, if someone wants to be male/female/both/a lizard with three balls, eight titties, gills, and a trunk. It is completely +++++ing meaningless, and I can't come up with a sensible reason that we even have to talk about it. This story boils down to: "Canada made a law." Alright then. Why it matters to a bunch of dudes who live in middle-f*ck nowhere Idaho and Nevada is way beyond me. 3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Being a jackass should not be a criminal offense. My OP is being proven true in this thread. Thank god for the conservatives in this country. It isn't. Discrimination is. Surely you know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said: It isn't. Discrimination is. Surely you know the difference. Yea, +++++ free speech. Saying "bro you are a dude" in a heated exchange should in no way be weighted for extra punitive measures any more than saying "+++++ you you sack of shit mother +++++er" should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestinFlPackfan Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Yea, +++++ free speech. Saying "bro you are a dude" in a heated exchange should in no way be weighted for extra punitive measures. I guess, if someone feels a general term regarding the gender perceived from a non informed 1st party is inaccurate-the second party who thinks they are being discriminated should wear a name tag identifying their preference of identification for the non informed persons of 1st party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, DestinFlPackfan said: I guess, if someone feels a general term regarding the gender perceived from a non informed 1st party is inaccurate-the second party who thinks they are being discriminated should wear a name tag identifying their preference of identification for the non informed persons of 1st party. No wonder the left is getting closer and closer to the Nazis Perfect solution! So your gender identity can not be mistaken, an identifying marker should be worn, for emotional safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestinFlPackfan Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 18 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: No wonder the left is getting closer and closer to the Nazis Perfect solution! So your gender identity can not be mistaken, an identifying marker should be worn, for emotional safety. Bingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 34 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said: I'm not having this debate. It's the dumbest "national conversation" we've had to have in a long time. I don't give a shit, at all, if someone wants to be male/female/both/a lizard with three balls, eight titties, gills, and a trunk. It is completely +++++ing meaningless, and I can't come up with a sensible reason that we even have to talk about it. This story boils down to: "Canada made a law." Alright then. Why it matters to a bunch of dudes who live in middle-f*ck nowhere Idaho and Nevada is way beyond me. It isn't. Discrimination is. Surely you know the difference. I am not one of your students you can bully with the power of your pulpit so of course you won't have a conversation. No matter what the mentally ill person wants to call themselves it does not change the actual meanings of words. Like most politically correct motivated positions, it is asinine. Now i could care less what jill/joe/jar wants to be called and maybe we need some new words. Yet I still think Jill/Joe/Jar wants to be treated medically like the gender they exhibit, not the one they made up in their head. Passing laws like this is just asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJSUMFA2013 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 38 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Yea, +++++ free speech. Saying "bro you are a dude" in a heated exchange should in no way be weighted for extra punitive measures any more than saying "+++++ you you sack of shit mother +++++er" should. I guess I just don't understand where you're getting that. I've reread the text of the law half a dozen times now and am just not reading that. It's an anti-discrimination law that's been expanded to include gender identity. A verbal altercation is not a crime, but a physical one could be. So if you beat up a transgender person and you do so specifically because they're transgender, then it's the Canada-equivalent of a hate crime, and they might discern your motivations based on what you said before or during the assault, same as they would if an attack was racially or religiously motivated. Your example of carrying a sign might fall under "hate propaganda," but unless you own a business and use it to intimidate customers, it's not discrimination, so I don't think it qualifies. Canadians are still free to say dumb things and everyone else is free to say, "oh, so THAT'S why he doesn't have any friends." I doubt very seriously they're developing a pronoun-enforcement task force (the pronounties?) to lock people up for speaking incorrectly. Only in Steve bannon's most vivid Vicodin-induced fever dreams is that shit happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 1 minute ago, SJSUMFA2013 said: I guess I just don't understand where you're getting that. I've reread the text of the law half a dozen times now and am just not reading that. It's an anti-discrimination law that's been expanded to include gender identity. A verbal altercation is not a crime, but a physical one could be. So if you beat up a transgender person and you do so specifically because they're transgender, then it's the Canada-equivalent of a hate crime, and they might discern your motivations based on what you said before or during the assault, same as they would if an attack was racially or religiously motivated. Your example of carrying a sign might fall under "hate propaganda," but unless you own a business and use it to intimidate customers, it's not discrimination, so I don't think it qualifies. Canadians are still free to say dumb things and everyone else is free to say, "oh, so THAT'S why he doesn't have any friends." I doubt very seriously they're developing a pronoun-enforcement task force (the pronounties?) to lock people up for speaking incorrectly. Only in Steve bannon's most vivid Vicodin-induced fever dreams is that shit happening. We just have to wait for the courts to do their thing. The way it reads to me is that if you are in a heated exchange or a physical altercation and words leave your mouth regarding their identity that you will be subject to extra punitive measures. That is not right. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluerules009 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 44 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: We just have to wait for the courts to do their thing. The way it reads to me is that if you are in a heated exchange or a physical altercation and words leave your mouth regarding their identity that you will be subject to extra punitive measures. That is not right. JMO. That is pretty well codified in law we already have though. If you kill a black guy and keep your mouth shut you get one sentence. If you kill a black guy and call him a name you get another sentence. Of course if you kill a black guy as a cop it seems you get a medal as long as you claim "you were in fear for your life". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BestintheWest Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 8 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: We just have to wait for the courts to do their thing. The way it reads to me is that if you are in a heated exchange or a physical altercation and words leave your mouth regarding their identity that you will be subject to extra punitive measures. That is not right. JMO. That'll still be fine to these people though. Their argument is that this doesn't hurt free speech. That it's so little that you're a bigot for being against something that won't affect most people. Some people don't get it. Baby steps...even the tiniest of steps....are not okay on infringing the basic of rights. When that line gets pushed once it is bound to get pushed again. Thank god some people still believe in the no pushing of the line...at all. All is well, For Rice is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...