3 ms·

Unless people are currently getting karted off by the Canadian feds for not calling older Canadians, "sir" and "mam" or not calling blind people, "visually impa

Unless people are currently getting karted off by the Canadian feds for not calling older Canadians, "sir" and "mam" or not calling blind people, "visually impaired", I think this guy may be creating an unnecessary panic. http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/ http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...

Freak_NL 10y ago
From the interview: > The other thing that’s built into this law and the surrounding policies […] they’ve changed two legal principles. It’s not ‘innocent before being proven guilty,’ it’s ‘preponderance of evidence,’ and it’s not intent, it’s outcome. Those transformations are so far reaching, it’s almost unimaginable. From a legal standpoint changing the law in such a way that well-intended social behaviour ("Excuse me miss, did you hand in your term paper on [topic] yet?", said the professor to the female student) would become punishable by law in case the observer of that action was offended is pretty draconian.
SiVal 10y ago
The incremental criminalization of speech that people in power want to silence should offend everyone. Almost by definition progress requires challenging an idea that has been generally accepted by those in power with a new idea that is initially generally rejected by those in power. (I'm not saying that all new ideas are progress. Most new ideas are bad ideas. I'm saying that all progress requires a switchover to those few new ideas that turn out to be improvements.) If those in power, meaning those who can get someone punished, are allowed to establish mechanisms of silencing opinions they don't like by force, you will be limited to hearing ideas that are generally accepted by those with power. That would put a serious damper on progress, no matter who they were, and I'm not aware of any credible study that has concluded that in any situation of conflict between ideas, the ideas of the people with the power to silence their critics by force are usually the more correct. If you disagree with what someone says, explain why; don't look for mechanisms to silence them by force. And if someone else proposes a plan to criminalize "offensive" speech, oppose them and explain why.
Chris2048 10y ago
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist." When they start carting people off, it might be too late. I'll add, premature "panic" is also common among the left - every conservative candidate is framed as the next Hitler...

Freak_NL 10y ago

From the interview: > The other thing that’s built into this law and the surrounding policies […] they’ve changed two legal principles. It’s not ‘innocent before being proven guilty,’ it’s ‘preponderance of evidence,’ and it’s not intent, it’s outcome. Those transformations are so far reaching, it’s almost unimaginable. From a legal standpoint changing the law in such a way that well-intended social behaviour ("Excuse me miss, did you hand in your term paper on [topic] yet?", said the professor to the female student) would become punishable by law in case the observer of that action was offended is pretty draconian.

SiVal 10y ago

The incremental criminalization of speech that people in power want to silence should offend everyone. Almost by definition progress requires challenging an idea that has been generally accepted by those in power with a new idea that is initially generally rejected by those in power. (I'm not saying that all new ideas are progress. Most new ideas are bad ideas. I'm saying that all progress requires a switchover to those few new ideas that turn out to be improvements.) If those in power, meaning those who can get someone punished, are allowed to establish mechanisms of silencing opinions they don't like by force, you will be limited to hearing ideas that are generally accepted by those with power. That would put a serious damper on progress, no matter who they were, and I'm not aware of any credible study that has concluded that in any situation of conflict between ideas, the ideas of the people with the power to silence their critics by force are usually the more correct. If you disagree with what someone says, explain why; don't look for mechanisms to silence them by force. And if someone else proposes a plan to criminalize "offensive" speech, oppose them and explain why.

Chris2048 10y ago

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist." When they start carting people off, it might be too late. I'll add, premature "panic" is also common among the left - every conservative candidate is framed as the next Hitler...