MigL

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision. Or are you going to be 'offended' for me, INow ? I don't care f you use they or he, as long as the meaning is clear and not ambiguous ( I would think Clint Eastwood clearly looks like a he ). Language is not a 'weapon', it is a tool that translates ideas to other people. And ideas cannot be prohibited, only actions can.

Well let me see if I can point out at least one of them ... IIRC, Peterkin knows that Religious beliefs are one of the protected areas under Bill C-16, yet he has no problem being offensive to Catholics, by making fun of priests, and implying they all get up to bad behaviour. If I had said that about gay/ trans/women or any of his favored causes, he would have been all over me. ( sort of like when a mosque or synagogue gets vandalized, and there's lots of hand-wringing/political visits and posturing, but about 50 Cathlic churches are burned down in Western Canada, in the wake of the residential school mass graves, and most don't even make the news ) Seems some people are more interested in appearing politically correct for the 'cause celebre', and wearing their 'offense' on their sleeve than actually protecting people's feelings. Apparently they want to pick and choose which areas they apply their politically correct views to. Well I wouldn't go that far, but he is certainly a hypocrite.

And I would argue that's courtesy, and optional; It should not be law. I should not be forced to legitimize anyone else's subjective beliefs. ( last time that was tried was the Spanish Inquisition )

I would have to agree with Joigus and Swansont. 'Classical entanglement' is better ( and more accurately ) known as a correlation

You've always been very sensible, and since I'm not sure if you're addressing J Peterson, or me, I will reply to this ... What about when the person wants to be referred to as They/them, but there is only one of Him/her ??? What about when the person wants to be referred to as Ze/hir, or Xe/xem, or Hy/hym, or even Co/cos ? When does it become a delusion, and not an oppression ? And someone please inform Peterkin ( because he always pretends he doesn't know what others are talking about ) that it doesn't matter if a law has never been used to such an end; once it's in the books there is a possibility that it will. I have never been hit by a bus either, that doesn't mean I don't take precautions and look both ways before crossing the street.

I am deeply offended by the two neg reps, without explanation. There should be a law against those who don't share my subjective viewpoint on such matters 😄 😄 . You don't seem to be clear on many things ... It is not the fact that they don't have a venue to present their dissenting views, but the fact that laws are enacted to prevent them from doing so. Do you actually not see the difference, 'Napoleon'. ( reference to Orwell's Animal Farm ) Anyway, I'm out. You guys carry on your 'virtue signaling' and patting each other on the back as to how 'woke' you are, all the while, enacting laws which diminish people's rights. Good uck with that.

Any new ideas are offensive to some people, all of the time.* Just ask the millions of Republicans, and MAGAs, in the US about J Biden's agenda, and whether they find it offensive. Do you think 'right-to-lifers' are not offended by the on-going 'murder' that 'pro-choicers' call abortion ? Do they have a right not to be offended ? Does that right only extend to people you agree with ? Or, do you think we should pass laws that forbid new ideas, as they might be offensive to some ? Social justice is a valid ideal to strive for, but you guys need to get off your hypocritical high horse. *( that is also J Peterson )

IIRC, this thread was supposed to be about "Jordan Peterson's ideas on politics". Not about gender discrimination, power hierarchies, male-female relations, etc. The only aspect of his endeavors which is political, is his objection to the Government of Canada's proposed Bill C-16, and his distaste for Marxist ideology. It is kind of difficult to have that discussion when other stuff, like gender discrimination, is brought up. Gender discrimination is illegal. On the other hand, offending people is not. This law attempts to vilify, and punish, people who may say something someone else doesn't like, because they claim to be offended. I noticed that in the example @TheVatbrought up, quite a few of you called the professor a jerk, but the 'offended' student, for whom an explanation was not good enough, and who proceeded to report/sue the Prof was absolved of all culpability. I guess some males use the threat of violence to establish hierarchies, others use the threat of law. Either way is an attempt at control of discourse, and the dissemination of ideas. No one should be able to control others ideas, and the way they think. But if you want to discuss gender discrimination, or male-female relations, please open a thread, and do so. Here, we are discussing J Peterson'e political ideas.

Ask Peterkin; he's the one who originally posted the above quote. Just before claiming he doesn't know which law I'm talking about.

So, no jail time. But it can get you fired. Even from a job ( such as a law/sociology/psychology professor ) where it is your job to present an opinion.

You are anything but dumb, so stop pretending. Biill C-16 has been mentioned several times. It is what brought J Peterson his 'fame'. If you look it up, it will answer several of your above questions. And are you now suggesting they were appropriate ???

Then what exactly is the purpose of making it a law ???

I call them as I see them. if she looks like a woman, I have no reason to call her he, they, them or any other pronoun. If she asked to be called otherwise, I might comply out of courtesy, But I would balk at being forced by law. J Peterson thinks the same.

And, if a few decades ago, they had proposed a law that banned such public displays, because some people were offended, would that not have been wrong ??? Are you trying to make my case for me ?

This is simply a case of Conscious Energy ( and Tar ? ) mistaking the 'model' of space-time for space-time itself. The model assigns a co-ordinate system to space-time, and the visible 'curvature' of that co-ordinate system effectively reproduces the effects of gravity. IOW, the model has curvature', space-time ... not necessarily. Actually, before Markus yells at me, GR, the model, actually uses relationships between events in space-time, as defined by a metric. ( I only used a co-ordinate system because it, and its curvature, are easier to visualize than changing separations in 4 dimensions )

Thanks for clarifying, but how is that not force of law ? And since abuse and harassment are crimes of perception, by the 'victim', how do you defend against them ? In other words, keep your opinions to yourself, unless your opinions agree with the self-identifying oppressed, and the virtue signalers. I suppose, next you'll say the law doesn't affect deaf-mutes at all, so all's good. No one should have to be afraid of voicing their opinion. And you have every right to self-identify as anything you want; you DON"T have the right to force it on me. ( in a just society, not the one you seem to want ) Lack of a proper argument leads you to critique his fashion sense ?

As usual, I fail to understand your non sequitors. Your mind works in mysterious ways Dim, so you'll have to elaborate.

You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish. The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech. And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society. If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist. When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money. You guys need to give your collective heads a shake !

You are far from typical, Loretta.

I would have rather you posted the ending, so I wouldn't have to read all that.

You can call them whatever you want. But they might not answer you.

It may be somewhat true, that the possibility of escalation to extremes is what keeps most people's face-to-face interactions civil, and why a lot of online interactions ( where that threat is removed ) emboldens some people to be as rude as possible. ( not you guys 🙂 ) That seems pretty judgemental for a tolerant, enlightened, progressive. Ahh well, we all have opinions.

Ahh, but they are equivalent ( except for 'special' effects ). Acceleration is due to a force acting on a 'free' mass, and weight is due to a force ( gravitational ) acting on a 'fixed' mass. That is part of the Equivalence Principle.

I, on the other hand, thought he was the only one who actually addresses the topic. And he did t in a nice, polite way; unlike some of the other participants. If a crazy person comes at you, intending to do you harm, you have a spectrum of responses, from civil discourse, all the way to breaking his arm so that he can't. If that person is crazy enough, he will harm you no matter how civil you are, because he is long past respecting civility. I have no problem dealing with crazy,violent men, who have made that choice. How do you deal with crazy, violent women ?

You have been. Thank goodness for the ground forcing you to stay in place.