News, highlights and more relating to this great province!
“Unfortunately,” she added, “what’s ironic is that by rejecting and citing political activism — whatever that means to them in this case — they are inherently politicizing the event and the decision.”
I mean . . . yeah
Weird, why can’t gay people carry a dragon down the road? How would anyone even know they’re gay?
China well known for supporting human rights........ Are you serious??? Nobody expects China to be decent citizens.
Vancouver contains a lot of old and long naturalized families that are more Canadian than anything else... and the majority of more recent Chinese emigrants are from Hong Kong and weren't raised under the PRC's educational system or culture.
Are all people obligated to have the same view and same opinion, or are people allowed to disagree and not associate with certain types of people?
You can't demand someone publicly endorse gay/trans if you won't publicly support people who have never got a vaccine in their life.
You are attempting to draw a false equivalence between something a person is vs a choice a person makes. A logically equivalent statement to yours would be, "You can't demand someone publicly endorse gay/trans if you won't publicly support people who choose to drive drunk."
I'm sure you can see how absurd that is.
No, that's discrimination against a protected group.
You're either daft or just trying to create a "gotcha" moment.
As an individual you can say whatever you want, however when you express bigotry or racism publically you face public criticism.
Nothing is stopping you from being a POS nothing is stopping you from being a homophobe nothing is stopping you from being a bigot. AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
You don't need to be friends with trans people, they don't want to be your friend anyways.
"What say did the public have" idk maybe all the decades of fighting for rights...
Jewphobes = antisemitic
We already have a word for that...
Also I get a vibe this would be you.
Hey dipshit: you can’t always tell the meaning of a word straightforwardly. Also. Fuck you.
Groups don't, that's a protected class under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Individuals of course can discriminate as they wish as long as they don't spread hate speech.
What is the universally recognized definition of "hate speech" that all people agree on?
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
Though not everyone agrees with it, I suspect. That said, they don't have to. It applies regardless.
Except it does do harm, quite a bit of it actually. The normalization of violent and exclusionary rhetoric is exactly why over a hundred years after the first trans surgeries it’s now politically convenient for big government to step in and ban access to them even though it was a non issue a decade ago. Getting the common people to pretend ‘I sure wish the government would hurry up and kill all the dirty Jews already’ is a minor political disagreement is persicely how one of the most tragic slaughters in history came about, and it is disturbing to see such ideas being repeated openly,
We, as a society have standards. We expect people to not go outside naked, and pushish thouse who do. That is not totalitarian, and it does not lead to gangs going around beating the clothed to death because the government has public indecency laws.
We already have, and have possessed since near the beginning, laws against useing certain slurs in media and it has also not led to the installation of a totalitarian regime. To pretend that extending such laws to protect all people and not just the feelings of religious busybodies is absurd.
It is not normal to pretend that being a such a broken and horible person that one wishes harm on innocent people one has never met, and it is not in the best interest of civil society to tolerate or amplify such people’s cruelty.
Who is tryig to ban adult trans surgeries? Who is saying that adults are not allowed to change their bodies?
Don’t expect it to stay south of the border, none of the other attempts to create social wedge issues have tanken long before the Conservatives inport them.
The law I linked is the product of a democratically elected government. Though I agree with it, I had no personal hand in it except perhaps in casting a vote for someone who would have voted for it when it came up in the House of Commons. If you disagree with the law, you are free to petition your fellow Canadians to vote for a party that will change it.
All that to say your accusations are histrionics.
You are an infinitely worse blight on society than any of the people you are bigoted against.
Ones who you are and one is a choice.
You made the choice to be a POS.
Don't politicize people's very existence.
It is perfectly tolerant to reject intolerance. In fact it is a hopeless endeavor to tolerate the intolerant.
It'd also really help your argument if you didn't use antivaxxers as an example.
Does it help you cope in the world by condemning someone with a different view? If someone says "I am against vaccines" they might agree, "Yes, I am anti-vax" and say it's an accurate description, you're not insulting them.
Yea, it does. Whether due to fears from misinformation, intentioned rejection of the social good, or just to troll - whatever the cause antivaxxers massively eroded public health and discourse. There's no shades of grey here - antivaxxers were simply wrong.
Now, some of the individuals were swept up in the misinformation and thought they acted in an ethical manner - those are folks who I hope grow as individuals and become better people... but the grifters - those who spread that misinformation for money, fame or political influence - those people can get fucked.
You still have to handle the people around you everyday who have never receieved an injection. You have stop living my emotions and opinions and actively seek out verified information that goes against what you believe in and see if you can provide your own counter information to disprove it. If you can't be friends with someone without knowing if they got injected, you are in a cult of invinsible ignorance.
this is a very dumb argument. If I state that it is everyone's "choice" to use the letter E in speech and text - which, technically, it is, therefore banning the letter E is a reasonable and logical approach then I'd rightly be called a madman.
And using the letter E is much more of a conscious choice than sexuality is. The letter E argument makes way more sense and it is still patent nonsense.