I have Asperger's Syndrome.

On a scale of 1-10, how much am I contributing to the downfall of nonautistic Western civilization? :06:

Not at all. But then you are not like this young lady we have over here in Germany, she has Down syndrome and she loves it. She says she wants to have many many babies and hopes they all will have Down syndrome and that society will embrace Down syndrome to be a contribution to what defines normality and that the quota of Down syndrome people amongst the population should rise. Dumb like straw, if you ask me.



The defamation of Peterson is fact. It does nto matter what the man likes or says, it is about the brutality by which a small but vocal minority claism the right to desrtoy everybody who dies not share their opinion and their demand that their opinions should become the common ruke of public life and standards. That Tchicky an Dowly love these kind of new legislations and embrace sanctionsing people disagreeing, is no surprise. The totalitariansim in the progressive scene is not one inch less intense and brutal as it is in right wing totalitarianism. For the corfrtetc world view and ideology: anything goes! And if you hold the wrong world view or the wrong opinion, you must not be disagree with, no - you must be destroyed socially, economically, legally! Serves you right!


One thing these people do not like, however - if they are beign called out for it and if what they do gets called by its real name.

Four times I have told you what I think should be punishable. You still seem to be unable to read simple text.

I suggested you behave like a decent person in discussion.


You didn't bother and now are assigning beliefs to myself and Dowly that we have not posted.

If you have to make things up to make your point, maybe you don't have one.


You could respond to what I posted but you'd rather fire up your imagination and invent things we said.

Well done.





There isn't enough internet between you and me. I need a shower.

You have done it four times, yes. and four times you did not realise the self-contradiction you are stating.

You imply that there could be an offence in stating the obvious. You focus on the intention behind stating the obvious. Since when does truth have an intention? Only the desire to hide the truth has an intention behind doing so. it. As if truth depends on intention for being truth! It needs not. Truth is truth. And there cannot be several truths - where it seems so, all but one truths must be wrong. That is the meaning and concept behind this term "truth".

There is no offence possible, and thus there shall not be any form of punishment or sanctionizing be possible or imaginable. So where you answered my question whether refusing gender-ideology-correct speech should be punishable with "If you are doing it intentionally, to harass or discriminate. Yes, absolutely", you imply - you cannot evade that implication - that using the obvious truth should be punished if the truth violates somebody's personal belief. And for that I call out a foul.

What did Peterson (whose case you comfortably cut short in summary as well) get quoted with in that article?

"
"I've studied authoritarianism for a very long time - for 40 years - and they're started by people's attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory," he told the BBC.
"There's no way I'm going to use words made up by people who are doing that - not a chance."
Dr Peterson is concerned proposed federal human rights legislation "will elevate into hate speech" his refusal to use alternative pronouns.
Legal experts disagree.
Bill C-16, currently before Canada's parliament, prohibits discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of gender identity and expression. The bill covers the federal government and federally regulated industries like banks or airlines. It also extends hate speech provisions under Canada's criminal code to transgendered people.
"

The C16 bill obviously criminalises the rejection of gender-ideological nonsense speak rules by labelling it as "hate crime" and "discrimination". BOTH IT IS NOT. The bill recngises gender claims on the gorudn sof nothing as natural, fact, and it gionroed sciencetific evidnce not beign exostent for such claims. It puts claim and beleif above evidence, truth, and effect. That is as if a court says since the offended does not feel guilty, his words are taken for granted, the case is lcosed and he can wlak as a free man. No evidence needed. That puts the legal system from its feet on its head, doesn't it?! You imply and you state - repeatedly - it would never be punished to not use gender speak, while since years the clear and direct opposite of your claim already happens in reality, and I gave example for it. It happens across most of Europe, North, Middle, South, West, not so much in the East. Tutors being fired from university, like they wanted to do with Peterson. Papers not accepted if students do not use gender new speak. Public administration forcing staff to use it. Social discrimjnation of rejective people. Media campaigns to defame violators. Mobbing at assemblies where paradoxically the right of free speech is claimed for pro gender, and is denied for anti-gender, or anti-FFF, or anybody not believing the mainstream dogma wanted by the self-proclaimed guardians of political correct thinking, especially in the academic territories. Cancel culture. Super-sensitive animosities of new students claiming to feel abused or ofended by somethign somebody said and demanding that he should be banned from telling what he has the right to say by freedom of speech. Peterson in the present faces a lock-out from movies and cinemas, just because part of staff in cinemas say they fell "uncomfortable" with airing his latest movie. Some cinemys rceived threats if they do not cancel the show. I pointed at the link between gender ideolgiy and activists, and the two battling schools of feminism. you ignore it, although it is important to know about it.

You deny reality. That simple. And you do so not on the grounds of reason or logic or evidence. You do so on grounds of ideologically founded claim of a special interest group's claim for power and influence, nothing else than this. All that what Tchocky implies as "being nice". If that is what means to "be nice", i hope peple see me as a rotten angry cat biting everybody. Because "being nice" then would be a disgrace.

I do not care for men dressing as women, or what people do inside their homes and cabins. I am not interested as long as what they do with others is acting by mutual consent. I just do not care. But they want me and us all to play by their rules, and to grant them special appreciation deserved by - nothing. They want rules being turned in their favour, and they want it to be sanctioned and punished when rejecting these rules. They want to underscore to be somethign special by demanding that they are seen as a norm of normlaity.



And this attitude of expecting something once has no claim for and even implying one has the right to enforce it by using brute force aganst all others to make them fallign in line, my dear Dowly, this all is the basic fundament of fascism in the wider sense of the term, because the term by common practice is fashionable since long to be used far beyond the historical context of the black skirt movement in past Italy.

And another thing you completely ignore: to adress what Forstater said and what Rowlings said, whom i quoted and linked to one page earlier, a Twitter message by Rowling and a full page or statement by Forstater. FORSTATER GOT FIRED FROM HER JOB. You completely ignore that forstater already GOT FIRED for an claimed offence you insist to descrie as NEVER GETTING PUNISHED at all. while claiming that the truth should be pnsihed if beign spoken out in an intention. Oh my.... What queer chaos of self-contradictions you have arranged there.

You deny reality. Things already are beyond your claims. SINCE MANY YEARS. But Tchocky demands me to "be nice". Well, always some volunteer around to put the cream on top of the cake.

Done here. Its pointless to talk to a deaf wall with holy scriptures on it.

As I've said already in this thread:
I quoted the link, anyone interested could read the entire article instead of the summary you posted.

What's the difference in trying to control it the other way around?

No, C16 doesn't do that. It simply adds 'Gender identity and expression' under the umbrella of existing laws.
If you deny service from someone on the basis that that person identifies as man, but looks like female. That's discrimination.
If you beat someone up and your motive is because she identifies as him, that's a hate crime.
C16 has absolutely nothing to do with whether you use the correct pronoun when addressing someone.

First of, she didn't get fired, her contract wasn't renewed. There's a difference. Secondly, let's see what I actually said:
She didn't accidentally use an incorrect pronoun, she did it repeatedly, seemingly on purpose.