Quote from: Ian on February 16, 2018, 10:33:55 PM

"The Holocaust was the murder by Nazi Germany of six million Jews" - the very first sentence on the information section of Yad Vashem (official World Holocaust Remembrance Center and memorial in Israel). The six million number is mentioned repeatedly on the site, the wiki page and the explanatory page by the memorial's curator. As Turkey pointed out, the 2.2 million refers only to the confirmed and identified victims they have official information on in their pages of testimony.

Wiki alone lists a whole bunch of research on the death count and while some early post-war studies arrived at a lower number, the more recent research is pretty consistent at placing the number in between the mid 5 and low 6 million. The discrepancies are pretty easily explained by the lack of recordkeeping.

Just to be clear though, I have nothing against Peterson. I agree with some of the things he says and it’s clear that he’s a reasonable, intelligent and accomplished man, which is exactly why I find this disappointing. Whether he likes it or not, him being a successful academic will always give him a certain position of authority, and I think that comes with some responsibilities. I have turned down requests for TV interviews because I didn’t consider myself qualified to speak on that specific topic and because I knew that they’d put a banner next to my name saying something along the lines of “legal expert / scholar” that would give undue legitimacy to my claims. Even if I got things wrong because it was outside of my area of expertise, people would still believe me and take my opinion for granted because of my perceived authority. For Peterson, a rock star academic with an enormous social media following and fan base, that effect and the potential fallout would be a hundred times worse yet he still gave public speeches, made YouTube videos and wrote news articles on a topic he himself admitted to know little about and actually got key parts of it wrong. And for someone who seems to be so focused on reason and fact, that just seems like a really poor decision. 

I think there’s two things you are still misunderstanding about the law. One, its scope of application. Your quote cut out the most important part of that section, being “within the legislative authority of (federal) Parliament”. Canada has a decentralized system of government like the US. In this case, the federal legislator regulates federal issues, while most other things are left to the lawmakers in each of the Provinces (the Canadian equivalent of States). As I already explained and provided sources for earlier, C-16 applies exclusively to federally regulated services and undertakings such as banks, railroads and the postal service.  Under the Canadian Constitution, education is explicitly reserved for the Provinces alone, meaning that this federal law simply doesn’t even apply to Peterson’s situation or any of the examples you gave.

Two, the paragraph you quoted doesn’t really have any legal impact. It’s an explanatory section that sets out the purpose of the law and what it’s working towards in general. It’s not actually a significant legal basis that you can rely on in court for any real word situations. Most laws don’t even have a section like this because it’s kind of redundant, so they instead put this in the non-binding recitals or explanatory memorandum. This is comparable to having a “purpose” section in the criminal code stating “that all individuals should be free from crime and that wrongdoers should be held accountable”. It’s nice and all, but you can’t actually go to court and present a case saying “well the law says I should be free from crime and that this guy should be punished so compensate me and throw him in jail”. You need to base your arguments on the actual provisions of the code that detail what constitutes as a crime and what the appropriate punishment can be. This might be difficult to understand without a legal background, but the section you’re referring to is nothing more than a kind of introduction that spells out why they adopted this law, what it should apply to and what they hope to achieve with it. If you look at the full Canadian Human Rights Act, you’ll see that this section comes even before “Part I” of the act – which is where the “actual” law starts.

In other words, no one can go to the Tribunal based on the claim that their “opportunity equal with others to make the lives they wish to have and to have their needs accommodated” has been violated or denied. They need to show that the other person or business is guilty of one of the “discriminatory practices” that the act lists in section 5. Only actions that fall under one of these practices (which are actually described in a pretty detailed way) can be considered illegal – not any random thing that makes someone feel bad like the use of pronouns. Yes, in the end it remains up to the court to decide, but it cannot simply invent a new type of discrimination when this is not provided for in the law. The misuse of pronouns doesn't fall under any of the practices that count as discrimniation.

As for the scope of the definitions, I think they’re more closely defined than you would think. Concerning discrimination, the Human Rights Act really does explain what practices are considered discriminatory. For example, regarding employment, section 7 states that it’s illegal to “refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual” (meaning not to hire or to fire someone) or to “differentiate adversely in relation to an employee” (meaning to treat someone differently from the rest in such a way that it negatively or harmfully affects them) when this is done for reasons of “a prohibited ground of discrimination” (being race, sexual orientation, sex and so on – as clearly delineated in the law). In my eyes, that’s pretty clear and much like what you’re asking for. If you refuse to hire someone because she’s a woman or you make your black employees scrub toilets and use the back entrance because of the color of their skin, then what you’re doing is discrimination. As for the very example you gave, the law does literally say that it’s considered discrimination “to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual” when based on a prohibited ground. As I explained before, C-16 is no longer referred to as a law on its own because all it does is add the words “gender and gender expression” to an existing law. If all you do is read the text of C-16, you’re only peeking through the keyhole and will miss the parts that actually matter.

Does that make sense?

I was wondering for ages why I wasn't getting notifications for streams to watch, so I kept checking here for progress (and I'm glad to see it's working out!).

But now I just fucking realised I wasn't following in the first place, fuck me smh.

Add a more consistent +1 to your views and $100 to your revenue.

Ah shit man, I didn't realize people were still checking this thread for updates. I felt bad about bumping this every time I started streaming, so I stopped after a while. There's only a few people from sep7agon who regularly watch my stream so I just figured that those who were interested had already followed. No sense posting constant updates as it's not suddenly going to make people want to watch. If update #10 doesn't do it then update #100 isn't either.

But thanks for the follow dude. Much appreciated. There's also a Discord for the stream where most regulars hang out (Banjo, Mark, Challenger are there too). I post a notification there every time I start streaming. The added revenue would be nice (Twitch doesn't actually pay out any of the money until I hit a $100 first, lol) but absolutely no worries or pressure. It's all for fun and I'm not in it for the money. Also, I'm hosting, streaming and casting a Quake tournament for a bunch of my viewers this week and our very own Banjo is hopefully going to play his match tonight.

Quote from: Flee on February 14, 2018, 06:15:24 AM

Quote from: Out of Touch on February 13, 2018, 09:55:36 PM

Quote from: Kitsune 狐 on February 13, 2018, 05:30:38 PM

Quote from: Out of Touch on February 13, 2018, 09:54:15 AM

I turned 22 yesterday.

Happy belated birthday

Dank je wel.  Thank you.

Nederlands?

Ja, ik weet een beetje.  Waarom?

Gewoon. Ik ben Vlaming.

It was a pretty good day. Got Horizon Zero Dawn from the gf.

https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/

Looks like Russia has already put its spambots to work to push fake news (which might explain how people like Batch believed the shooter was a Democrat / antifa even though it's now looking he was part of a far right group) and pro gun rhetoric to capitalize of these situations.

Quote from: Luciana on February 15, 2018, 04:08:18 PM

The fact people give a fuck about his political leanings and not how he got the damn gun in the first place astonishes me

Over 18 and probs no crim record. Heres your tool of destruction good sir enjoy your day.

Ban guns and shit like this will not happen anywhere near as much of at all.

Nothing will happen, unfortunately. A man walked into an elementary school and shot two dozen little kids in 2012. The only actually tangible consequence? Sales of the type of gun he used skyrocketed with no meaningful or substantial changes to any policy. If that doesn't say it all then I don't know what does.

I think most of your criticism stems from a lack of legal knowledge. Law is a pretty complicated area. In many countries it takes around 5 years of higher legal education and several more of training just before you're even allowed to take the bar exam, yet nowadays just about everyone thinks they're qualified or able to just skim through a bill and have it all figured out. I'm not saying that this what you're doing and I think law should be more accessible to all, but this is an issue that can snowball out of control pretty quickly (remember the whole "omg California is making it legal to infect people with AIDS and to prostitute children?!" outrage?). Even I have to be careful because I'm obviously not well versed in Canadian law, but both Peterson and you have admitted to know very little about law in general - and that is kind of problematic here.

Neutral and open terms are a necessity of legislation. This has always been the case and won't change. Strictly defining every term will always result in unforseen complications and outdated rules. Define a "network search" as the seizure and investigation of all the digital systems and the network on the premises of the warrant, and a few years later the arrival of cloud computing makes it so that the police cannot access anything stored in a cloud drive without new legislation being passed (this actually happened in many countries). There is no way to provide a complete list of everything that could possibly constitute as bias or discrimination, and even if you try to provide a conclusive definition you're always going to be leaving things open to interpretation. Common legal definitions of discrimination include terms like "impairing equality of opportunity" or "unfair treatment". What's considered unfair? What's equality? What kind of actions (or inactions) would be impairing it? You need to leave sufficient room for interpretation so that courts, scholars and public institutions can help fill them in and draw a consistent line applicable to a multitude of different situations. I understand your criticism, but they are somewhat misplaced in this instance as the law is no more vague or open for interpretation than others, and your concerns kind of relate to the fundamental aspects of our legal system.

C-16 is no longer a bill. It’s a law that no one will refer to again because it simply amends existing provisions. That alone should answer several of your questions and is part of the reason why this is a difficult topic. If you don’t have the necessary background knowledge on the instruments and policies that this law changes, it's almost impossible to have an informed opinion. It’s like trying to understand an advanced political concept like gerrymandering or filibustering without even knowing what the Senate is, if that makes sense. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies exclusively to federally regulated employers and service providers like governmental agencies, railroads and banks. This does not include higher education. The Act (linked earlier) also clearly lists and explains what is considered a “discriminatory practice”, being things like rejecting employment, refusing access to commercial premises and denying goods or services offered. The closest thing the law mentions is “differentiating adversely” but this refers to situations like letting black people eat at your restaurant but only if they sit in the “coloreds only” section at the back – not refusing to call a student some specific term (which again doesn’t even fall under the scope of the law in the first place).

The professor not calling someone zer doesn’t count as illegal discrimination as it is defined in the law and falls outside of its scope of application. The tribunal could not rule this discrimination. The student holding up the sign wouldn’t be found guilty of hate propaganda because it’s limited to calls for genocide and representations that are “intended to circulate extreme feelings of enmity”. Canada has several Supreme Court Cases on this that set the bar for hate speech extremely high. Much worse comments than that about Jews have been considered acceptable in the past, so there’s no way a sign like that would break the law.

As for the fine resulting in a jail sentence, I don’t exactly know how that would work in this situation. Under the Human Rights Act, there’s a special Commission investigating claims of discrimination and offering remediation. Only then and if nothing gets resolved will the case go to a special Tribunal, meaning that a man like Peterson couldn’t simply be sued for this. I don’t know what this means for the possibility of an imprisonment sentence, but a criminal sanction in a civil case is almost always reserved as a last resort. They can, for example, simply turn to the employer and collect the fine from the person’s wages or capital. Contempt is a very high threshold that is usually reserved for cases where someone hides behind a legal construct (for example, an independent businessman dividing assets in companies so that they cannot be claimed) so that there’s no way for money to obtained from him while it’s abundantly clear he can pay.

What you consider a problem, I really don’t think is much of one. It’s a gripe applicable to the vast majority of laws that deals with the fundamental workings of our legal systems. C-16 is not a drastic change opening the floodgates for SJW abuse. As the articles I linked before already covered, transgender protection and anti-discrimination laws with broader scopes of application have already been in force at the provincial level for 5+ years without any of these worst case scenarios actually happening. So I stand by what I said. Either Peterson and the people arguing these points are largely uninformed, in which case an intellectual like him owes it to himself to show some restraint, get properly educated and talk to legal experts for advice – not write articles and give talks that will rile up his many followers on an issue that is far outside his area of expertise and that he knows little of. That, or he’s deliberately being disingenuous by misrepresenting and exaggerating things. I don't know much about him so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but this doesn't inspire much confidence. I'm a legal scholar and law is my area of expertise yet still I'm wary talking about this because it's Canadian law and not my preferred field. There is no way that I would even consider publicly talking about psychology because I don't think I'm qualified to do that. Especially if I had the following and audience that Peterson does, I would do everything I could to educate myself and even then be reluctant to speak on this from a pretend position of authority exactly because of how many people would get the wrong idea if I was wrong. Yet here he is speaking to thousands on something he knows little of, and his words clearly did leave an impact on some (you seemingly being an example). As another academic, that alone makes me wary of him and question how focused on truth he really is. I agree with his opinion on not being forced to use pronouns, but this is a letdown.

Welp time to end it all.

Aw.

I do have to agree with Nixeris here. You say you're a truth seeker but seem to be very predisposed towards a certain outcome from the start, maybe in part because you're looking at /pol/ for some of this. Even though you say that he could be a Trump supporter, you have dismissed the evidence for that claim and pretty confidently stated that he's antifa, a registered Democrat and someone posting pro Islam messages online.

Meanwhile, the Instagram profile with the MAGA picture has been verified as his by several outlets like the NY Times. The claim that he's a registered Democrat has been attributed to a misspelling of his name, as admitted even by right wing outlets like the Gateway Pundit. The "pro Islam" posts (which I just saw screenshots of) are actually very clearly mocking Muslims and joking about killing terrorists and Islam "sand durkas". And classmates of his have also stated in interviews that he was extremely patriotic and  hostile toward Muslims / Islam and wore a MAGA hat to school while going into military prep training.

Is this possibly all false? Absolutely. But the point is that much of this is sensationalist headline grabbing and that there's much evidence to the contrary of what you seem to present as truth. It happens every time an attack occurs. Right wing outlets say someone heard on a police radio that the man shouted in Arabic, so it's a Muslim immigrant! Leftist outlets say an old classmate saw remembers him with a confederate flag so he's a racist Trump supporter! More often than not, there's major flaws on either side. And as Nix said, you come across as pretty eager to accept that he's some pro-Islam lefty while you seem very skeptical of evidence that he's a Trump supporter.

Sources for what I said:
https://nypost.com/2018/02/14/alleged-florida-shooter-appeared-to-flaunt-weapons-on-instagram/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nick-cruz-parkland-florida-shooting-stoneman-douglas-high-school?ref=scroll
https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/nikolas-cruz-maga-nikolaus-trump-politics-democrat-republican/amp/

CNN

At least 17 people were killed Wednesday in a high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said.

The suspect, 19-year-old former student Nikolaus Cruz, is in custody, the sheriff said. The sheriff said he was expelled for unspecified disciplinary reasons. Police are investigating his digital profile, he said. So far, what they've found is "very, very disturbing," Israel said.

Law enforcement responded to reports of a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shortly before 3 p.m.
Seventeen people, including the suspect, were sent to area hospitals, said Dr. Evan Boyar of Broward Health. The suspect was treated and released to police. The victims included students and adults, the sheriff said. Twelve were killed inside the building and two died outside, he said. One died in the street and two died at the hospital, Israel said.

Guardian

Seventeen people were confirmed dead as the United States endured another horrifying school shooting at the hands of a teenage gunman armed with an AR-15 assault rifle.

Twelve people died inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida. Two more died just outside the building, one more died in a nearby street and two more victims died in hospital, a Broward County sheriff confirmed.

After initial reports of a shooter, officers surrounded the campus, directing the evacuation of hundreds of students from the scene, while other teens hid inside closets and under desks to stay safe. Students later told reporters that they at first thought alarms in the school were a fire drill, until they heard gunshots in the hallways.

As first reports emerged, deputies of the Broward County sheriff’s department said the high school was on a “code red” lockdown. The department said there were “at least 14 victims” being taken to a local hospital and medical center, although it was not clear from the statement whether any of them were fatally injured.

However, by 6.30pm local time, police sheriff Scott Israel confirmed the grim news: “It’s a horrific, horrific day. My triplets attended this school, and it’s horrible, just horrible.”

Medical staff confirmed a total of 17 patients had been taken to three hospitals - two patients died, at least three more were in critical condition. The suspect was treated and released into police custody.

Sheriff Israel identified the killer as 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, who was in custody. Israel said Cruz had been “expelled for disciplinary reasons”. (The sheriff’s office had previously released incorrect spellings of his name.)

Israel said: “He had countless magazines, multiple magazines. One AR-15. I do not know if he had a second.”

Quote from: Flee on February 14, 2018, 03:07:30 AM

Quote from: TheAlphaHydra. on February 13, 2018, 10:34:12 AM

Quote from: WOOKIE ON CRACK on February 13, 2018, 10:30:59 AM

Quote from: TheAlphaHydra. on February 13, 2018, 10:29:48 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on February 13, 2018, 10:24:25 AM

Baul Plart Caul Mop

I can’t tell if it’s a joke or that’s basically what it is in a nutshell

why would he lie?

How the frick am I supposed to know

Excuse me this is a Christian family friendly PG13 forum messaging board, so please refrain from using that kind of profanity.

Family friendly christian post | NSFW (not R-18 though)

(weebness intensifies)

This is why anime is a sin Mark.

Quote from: Kitsune 狐 on February 13, 2018, 05:30:38 PM

Quote from: Out of Touch on February 13, 2018, 09:54:15 AM

I turned 22 yesterday.

Happy belated birthday

Dank je wel.  Thank you.

Nederlands?

Quote from: WOOKIE ON CRACK on February 13, 2018, 10:30:59 AM

Quote from: TheAlphaHydra. on February 13, 2018, 10:29:48 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on February 13, 2018, 10:24:25 AM

Baul Plart Caul Mop

I can’t tell if it’s a joke or that’s basically what it is in a nutshell

why would he lie?

How the frick am I supposed to know

Excuse me this is a Christian family friendly PG13 forum messaging board, so please refrain from using that kind of profanity.

Everyone gets a quote but me.

Is it cause I'm white?