Help Stop Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity

[Blake Gillman]

I agree that it should not be discriminated against.

 

But kids are going to be kids, the government doesn't need to get involved every time someones "Feelings get hurt" oh im sorry I said "Illegal Immigrant" let me just change my entire way of speaking to please you, because your another citizen helping the government bend down and kiss the ass of the minorities. So if you don't want it happen, get involved by telling them that it's not okay, but don't go hiding behind the government annoying the rest of the nation.

 

 

And what the !@#$ was that about all communists being atheists? I'm an atheist, and you don't see me attempting to form a nation under communist decree, nor proclaiming that communism is the answer to our government (Although I do agree that our current government, nation, and everything American is a complete waste of time, and america should just elect someone terrible (Like Obama again) so we can hurry up the end of this nation, because this country has been dead for quite some time, and we need to just finally bury it.)

Edited December 2, 2015 by Alkadi Yiri

[Nadir Aminu]

My generation (millennials) are a bunch of self-righteous, entitled, deluded children.

Our men are growing into manbabies.

Our women are being told it's ok to be as disgusting as possible.

Guys, let's face it, this generation sucks.

Exactly. Mainly the Americans.

[Blake Gillman]

Exactly. Mainly the Americans.

 

All americans of this generation are controlled by the media, they believe discrimination is the biggest problem there is. They believe that everyone should be equal, and taking pills all your life is fine, and they believe that you should pander to the minorities to make everyone "Happy" and they believe they should be offended by what everyone else is offended by.

[durmij]

I'm done with this thread. It'll never get anyone of us anywhere. I think I'm gonna go suck a dick out off spite.

[Nadir Aminu]

All americans of this generation are controlled by the media, they believe discrimination is the biggest problem there is. They believe that everyone should be equal, and taking pills all your life is fine, and they believe that you should pander to the minorities to make everyone "Happy" and they believe they should be offended by what everyone else is offended by.

I'm only 13, but I do believe in equality, but I think that movements like the Black Lives matter is just basically stupid. The kids I go to school with call everything racist, or sexist. It just gets really annoying.

[Dimitri Valko]

My generation (millennials) are a bunch of self-righteous, entitled, deluded children.

Our men are growing into manbabies.

Our women are being told it's ok to be as disgusting as possible.

Guys, let's face it, this generation sucks. 

 

Yes! Although there are exceptions, the newest generation is mostly utter shit.

[Blake Gillman]

But communists are atheists that's why i dislike them

But i'll have to agree with captain Viet Minh here

You got rekt by China during the Korean war AND you could win the Vietnam war but Billons of dollars would be wasted on a war with an Minor nation wich won't give Murica profit

If you lose over billons of dollars i can't say that you actually won

 

Lol

 

Communists are atheists? Have you ever read any book regarding actual communism? I mean, have you even ever heard of World War 2? You know, those Catholic Nazis? Ring a bell? Or are you just so moronic that the term "World War" is P-H PHRESH to you, because you didn't know the word 'fresh' because you spend your time playing Roblox well your mother in the background goes 'Oh he'll find his own path', probably never been disciplined. !@#$ religous dumbasses really piss me off, see unlike !@#$ like you, atheists don't get offended by religion, we just get pissed off at how stupid it is, and how moronic a majority of the people are who follow it in terms of Ideology, or even their own Religious Background. Your probably some dumbass christian who couldn't even tell me who Jesus Christ was besides "HE WAS GODS SON OMG 4THEWIN #CODLIFE"

Edited December 2, 2015 by Alkadi Yiri

[Peter Quill]

Communists are atheists? Have you ever read any book regarding actual communism? I mean, have you even ever heard of World War 2? You know, those Catholic Nazis? Ring a bell? Or are you just so moronic that the term "World War" is P-H PHRESH to you, because you didn't know the word 'fresh' because you spend your time playing Roblox well your mother in the background goes 'Oh he'll find his own path', probably never been disciplined. !@#$ religous dumbasses really piss me off, see unlike !@#$ like you, atheists don't get offended by religion, we just get pissed off at how stupid it is, and how moronic a majority of the people are who follow it in terms of Ideology, or even their own Religious Background. Your probably some dumbass christian who couldn't even tell me who Jesus Christ was besides "HE WAS GODS SON OMG 4THEWIN #CODLIFE"

He's Muslim, BTW.

And no, we don't say "HE WAS GODS SON OMG 4THEWIN #CODLIFE".

Not all Christians are medieval fundamentalist gay-hating !@#$.

Not all Christians are dumbasses. Some of us actually have a brain.

Some atheists I've met just didn't care about religion. So you can't speak for all the atheists when there are 900 !@#$ million in this mother !@#$ world.

And also, this is why I hate antitheists.

So !@#$ off.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Dylan Pascua

[Doktor Avalanche]

Communists are atheists? Have you ever read any book regarding actual communism?

Would you like me to quote Karl Marx stating that Religion is the opium of the Masses and therefore needs to be nullified during the revolution? Marx stated that religion is irrational, softens people into accepting anything religious leaders tells them, and lastly, is hypocritical. SO yes, Communism, according to its founder, is atheistic.

Edited December 3, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[Spite]

I'm done with this thread. It'll never get anyone of us anywhere. I think I'm gonna go suck a dick out off spite.

Woah there, we just met!

 

Marx wasn't particularly anti-religious, he barely mentions it in his writing. He does make the odd comment about organised religion. His famous "opiate of the people" comment is frequently written out of context.

 

"Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

 

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

 

In other words religion or spirituality is natural and gives people hope and joy. Marx's criticism was that the flavour or religions was tainted by the world they exist in - a world governed by hegelian laws.

 

Also Engels who was as important as Marx in his own way wrote extensively about Christian socialism and made many positive comparisons between Christianity and communism.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Spite

[Kurdanak]

I'm done with this thread. It'll never get anyone of us anywhere. I think I'm gonna go suck a dick out off spite.

Woah there, we just met!

*sneaks back out of thread*

Edited December 3, 2015 by Kurdanak

[Gandorian]

This is something fundamentally different then what was being discussed. Gender neutral bathrooms are just a rebranding of coed bathrooms which have been around for decades. Those incidents aren't cases of cis men pretending to be trans women to commit predatory actions as was being discussed in this thread. These are instances of cis men committing predatory actions in a bathroom they always had access to. But hey, if we want to talk about the prevalence of sexual violence in post-secondary institutions and the failure of administrations and ultimately society to treat it seriously, i'm down.

 

And I know everyone gravitates to media that confirms their biases, myself included, but could you pick one that doesn't sound like it was by a bible thumping house wife at a PTA meeting? If you ask someone an unanswerable question, you're not doing journalism, you're proselytizing.

 

TL;DR: If you're going to refute me with an article, make sure it's actually about the discussion going on. 

 

Edit: Spelling

You might want to go back and re-read my post and the article you linked to. I specifically refuted the mediamatters article which featured a picture of a sign that read "Gender Neutral Restroom". The link I posted also featured a picture of a sign reading "Gender Neutral Restroom" and it refuted (through reality) the supposed myth in the article you linked to.

 

Complaining about a bias article (while ironically citing mediamatters yourself), instead of accepting the substance (it actually happened despite your link saying it was a myth) doesn't help your argument.

 

Simply put...the article I cited debunked the myth argument from the article you cited with reality instead of opinion. No more, no less.

 

 

[Fox Fire]

My generation (millennials) are a bunch of self-righteous, entitled, deluded children.

Our men are growing into manbabies.

Our women are being told it's ok to be as disgusting as possible.

Guys, let's face it, this generation sucks. 

I would argue that previous generations equally sucked in their own ways. After all, we had to get to this point somehow. 

[durmij]

Why the !@#$ do I keep coming back? I think this qualifies as self harm.
 

 

You might want to go back and re-read my post and the article you linked to. I specifically refuted the mediamatters article which featured a picture of a sign that read "Gender Neutral Restroom". The link I posted also featured a picture of a sign reading "Gender Neutral Restroom" and it refuted (through reality) the supposed myth in the article you linked to.

Complaining about a bias article (while ironically citing mediamatters yourself), instead of accepting the substance (it actually happened despite your link saying it was a myth) doesn't help your argument.

Simply put...the article I cited debunked the myth argument from the article you cited with reality instead of opinion. No more, no less.

 

There is no such thing as not having bias, truth be told. It's like an asymptote , you can get close, but you will never reach it. The closest thing is raw scientific data, but even that has to pass through context, which is presented by flawed people, to achieve meaning. Though it is interesting that the author of your article failed the Journalism 101 task of actually sourcing her quotes. It sounds like she contacted no one and is transposing a line from an official statement as an answer. Close to slander, but not enough to be liable. 
 

The first picture says Gender Neutral Restrooms, but the actual article itself is about the fears given. I just skimmed it, but the reason I chose it was for the numerous quotes from local and state governments saying that they have not had any incidents like the theoretical ones described in this thread and all over the internet. Local and State governments are a big stake holder, and would be dragged into court if such an incident occurred, doubly so if the tried to cover it up. They are as close as we are going to get to neutral in this, and they are the ones giving the information.

 

TL;DR You looked at the accompanying picture of my article and nothing else, and chose to refute it with a blogger who wouldn't pass journo 101. You claim that my side is myth and yours is reality, but you are deliberately ignored the information provided. I may have unintentionally baited you off track, but the fact that you chose a near libelous far right blogger to make your point shows your entrenchment around this issue.

 

Edit: Did some fact checking. It turns out the quote from "the University" in the blogpost you provided is actually lifted from a CityNews article. http://www.citynews.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-changes-gender-neutral-washroom-policy-after-voyeurism-allegations-surface/ This means there is a good chance the author never actually contacted the university, and is definitely lying about receiving the quote themselves. I wonder if that does push it into the realm of slander? I need to revisit this.

Edited December 4, 2015 by durmij

[Gandorian]

Why the !@#$ do I keep coming back? I think this qualifies as self harm.

 

 

There is no such thing as not having bias, truth be told. It's like an asymptote , you can get close, but you will never reach it. The closest thing is raw scientific data, but even that has to pass through context, which is presented by flawed people, to achieve meaning. Though it is interesting that the author of your article failed the Journalism 101 task of actually sourcing her quotes. It sounds like she contacted no one and is transposing a line from an official statement as an answer. Close to slander, but not enough to be liable. 

 

The first picture says Gender Neutral Restrooms, but the actual article itself is about the fears given. I just skimmed it, but the reason I chose it was for the numerous quotes from local and state governments saying that they have not had any incidents like the theoretical ones described in this thread and all over the internet. Local and State governments are a big stake holder, and would be dragged into court if such an incident occurred, doubly so if the tried to cover it up. They are as close as we are going to get to neutral in this, and they are the ones giving the information.

 

TL;DR You looked at the accompanying picture of my article and nothing else, and chose to refute it with a blogger who wouldn't pass journo 101. You claim that my side is myth and yours is reality, but you are deliberately ignored the information provided. I may have unintentionally baited you off track, but the fact that you chose a near libelous far right blogger to make your point shows your entrenchment around this issue.

 

Edit: Did some fact checking. It turns out the quote from "the University" in the blogpost you provided is actually lifted from a CityNews article. http://www.citynews.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-changes-gender-neutral-washroom-policy-after-voyeurism-allegations-surface/ This means there is a good chance the author never actually contacted the university, and is definitely lying about receiving the quote themselves. I wonder if that does push it into the realm of slander? I need to revisit this.

-In your attempt to look intelligent in your first paragraph, you must have forgot the fact that slander is oral defamation, not written. Libel is written defamation and must include a false statement that is injurious. It wasn't false and no injury was caused because of it.

-You shouldn't "just skim" an article if you are going to use it to attempt to prove a point.

-I read your entire article as well as the one I linked to. You should do the same.

-Trying to spin who wrote the article I linked to isn't going to work. In fact I'll link to a different article about the same incident from "left-wing" Huffpo and Toronto's The Star, which quoted Toronto police officer, Victor Kwong who spoke about it. Also, it was posted a day before the City News article you just added.

-Your attempt to try an deflect, chastising the author of the article I linked to didn't work. The incident happened, the authorities are investigating and the school took action.

 

Edited to add links:

Toronto's, The Star article

Huffington article

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Gandorian

[durmij]

-In your attempt to look intelligent in your first paragraph, you must have forgot the fact that slander is oral defamation, not written. Libel is written defamation and must include a false statement that is injurious. It wasn't false and no injury was caused because of it.

-You shouldn't "just skim" an article if you are going to use it to attempt to prove a point.

-I read your entire article as well as the one I linked to. You should do the same.

-Trying to spin who wrote the article I linked to isn't going to work. In fact I'll link to a different article about the same incident from "left-wing" Huffpo and Toronto's The Star, which quoted Toronto police officer, Victor Kwong who spoke about it. Also, it was posted a day before the City News article you just added.

-Your attempt to try an deflect, chastising the author of the article I linked to didn't work. The incident happened, the authorities are investigating and the school took action.

 

 

-I looked up the definitions to make sure I was using them right and used the english version instead of the more commonly excepted legalese version. Derp. I was trying to make sure I didn't type anything that could lead to a defamation case against me. Ironic. It might still be defamation because that quote is clearly stolen and is being framed as a response to a question that was probably never asked. I asked my roommate, who is a paralegal. and honestly we have no idea. We tried to find a similar case in Ontario (Ontario defamation laws apply globally if the victim is based there), but had no luck, as stealing and reframing a quote is just so bizarre. My next day off is Monday, and I plan to email the UofT legal department to bring it to their attention. They'll probably roll their eyes at it and me, but it's worth it.

-I did read your entire article, hard though it was. I say I skimmed mine because it had what I wanted in it: raw facts. The short preamble was meaningless next to the numerous statements by governments that the fears of assault happening because of non-discrimination clauses are unfounded.

-I'm not spinning anything, i'm pointing out gross failures in basic journalism. Those articles at least do basic things like source quotes. Also, I'm not sure if those quote were sarcastic, but if you think Huffpo is left, I dare you try Jacobin, Harpers or anything that isn't devolving into clickbait.

-I'm not deflecting, this incident is unrelated to the subject being discussed; cis dudes pretending to be trans woman to commit assault. Yes this assault happened, is very serious, needs to be investigated and I hope the bastard(s) face serious consequences. But you want to know the only and only cause of assault? Assaulters. This shit happens in strict, good, Christian bathrooms too. 

-I didn't deflect, I pointed out the obvious flaws in the author's journalistic ability. If i wanted to attack the author, I'd point out that they have 10 months of blogging experience (source: earliest found article), whereas one of the authors of my article has 5 years professional experience. (source linkedin).

[Doktor Avalanche]

Woah there, we just met!

 

Marx wasn't particularly anti-religious, he barely mentions it in his writing. He does make the odd comment about organised religion. His famous "opiate of the people" comment is frequently written out of context.

 

"Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

 

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

 

In other words religion or spirituality is natural and gives people hope and joy. Marx's criticism was that the flavour or religions was tainted by the world they exist in - a world governed by hegelian laws.

Marx was not antagonistic towards religion because he viewed religion primarily through a historical perspective. Marx viewed everything as a matter of society which included economics as the biggest factor to society. Religion in his view was just a drug to stupefy the masses. It was not that he hated religion but instead just saw it as a failure. Marx stated "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness" and therefore strived to forge a society which had no need to cling to such things like religion. Thus in the end, a godless society therefore being Atheistic, Communism is an Atheistic Society.

[Gandorian]

-I looked up the definitions to make sure I was using them right and used the english version instead of the more commonly excepted legalese version. Derp. I was trying to make sure I didn't type anything that could lead to a defamation case against me. Ironic. It might still be defamation because that quote is clearly stolen and is being framed as a response to a question that was probably never asked. I asked my roommate, who is a paralegal. and honestly we have no idea. We tried to find a similar case in Ontario (Ontario defamation laws apply globally if the victim is based there), but had no luck, as stealing and reframing a quote is just so bizarre. My next day off is Monday, and I plan to email the UofT legal department to bring it to their attention. They'll probably roll their eyes at it and me, but it's worth it.

-I did read your entire article, hard though it was. I say I skimmed mine because it had what I wanted in it: raw facts. The short preamble was meaningless next to the numerous statements by governments that the fears of assault happening because of non-discrimination clauses are unfounded.

-I'm not spinning anything, i'm pointing out gross failures in basic journalism. Those articles at least do basic things like source quotes. Also, I'm not sure if those quote were sarcastic, but if you think Huffpo is left, I dare you try Jacobin, Harpers or anything that isn't devolving into clickbait.

-I'm not deflecting, this incident is unrelated to the subject being discussed; cis dudes pretending to be trans woman to commit assault. Yes this assault happened, is very serious, needs to be investigated and I hope the bastard(s) face serious consequences. But you want to know the only and only cause of assault? Assaulters. This shit happens in strict, good, Christian bathrooms too. 

-I didn't deflect, I pointed out the obvious flaws in the author's journalistic ability. If i wanted to attack the author, I'd point out that they have 10 months of blogging experience (source: earliest found article), whereas one of the authors of my article has 5 years professional experience. (source linkedin).

 

 

-You can call whoever you want, and you really don't need to worry about any defamation case against you...lol. I do highly suggest you look into legalities of defamation quite a bit more. My son is an attorney and TBH, he laughed.

- Below is a direct quote from which your article cited that the article I linked to debunked by showing it does happen. Again, this is what my original post refuted, but instead of accepting it you went on some diatribe about the authors writing. 

"Conservative Media Outlets Have Promoted Bogus Bathroom Stories. Numerous conservative media outlets, including The Daily Caller, WND, and the Media Research Center, have similarly promoted the myth that sexual predators will exploit trans-inclusive restrooms to prey upon women. [Equality Matters, 8/19/13, 8/22/13, 2/3/14]"

-First you say the article is slanderous or liable and now you say what was written really happened and is serious. Your all over the place. Once again....I refuted your link's hypothetical supposed myths with reality- nothing more, nothing less.

-I link to two additional articles reporting the same thing by two different writers, including a left-winger (of course Huffpo is left-wing) and a writer reporting news in Toronto's Star and you still dwell on the "right-wing" bloggers credentials. Of course you are deflecting and it's almost comical when your admitting the report is true.

-Debate your position all you want about the issue of transgender equality, but this specific debate with me about my article directly refuting yours is obviously futile on your part. 

 

[durmij]

-You can call whoever you want, and you really don't need to worry about any defamation case against you...lol. I do highly suggest you look into legalities of defamation quite a bit more. My son is an attorney and TBH, he laughed.

- Below is a direct quote from which your article cited that the article I linked to debunked by showing it does happen. Again, this is what my original post refuted, but instead of accepting it you went on some diatribe about the authors writing. 

"Conservative Media Outlets Have Promoted Bogus Bathroom Stories. Numerous conservative media outlets, including The Daily Caller, WND, and the Media Research Center, have similarly promoted the myth that sexual predators will exploit trans-inclusive restrooms to prey upon women. [Equality Matters, 8/19/13, 8/22/13, 2/3/14]"

-First you say the article is slanderous or liable and now you say what was written really happened and is serious. Your all over the place. Once again....I refuted your link's hypothetical supposed myths with reality- nothing more, nothing less.

-I link to two additional articles reporting the same thing by two different writers, including a left-winger (of course Huffpo is left-wing) and a writer reporting news in Toronto's Star and you still dwell on the "right-wing" bloggers credentials. Of course you are deflecting and it's almost comical when your admitting the report is true.

-Debate your position all you want about the issue of transgender equality, but this specific debate with me about my article directly refuting yours is obviously futile on your part. 

 

 

Holy shit I've never met anyone this deliberately obtuse. I never said this incident never happened, just that it was unrelated to the subject being discussed. The libel comes from the author quite obviously stealing a quote and possibly lying about even contacting the alleged source at all. It might not cross the line into criminal territory, but it is definitely bad journalistic practice at the very least. The reason I linked to the article I chose to before was the cold hard facts therein; the statements from various governments that the fears surrounding men using the trans inclusion ordinances to commit assault are unfounded.

 

And since this is now a question of journalistic integrity, I will attack her credentials fully. She has 10 months of intermittent opinion pieces passed off as news. Calling this an article is misleading. You could have linked to an actual new site from the get go, we wouldn't even be talking about libel. The incident would have still been unrelated, but at least it would be a sound piece. I had never heard of Media Matters before, but apparently a huge part of their mission statement is to fact check and call out blogs that don't take facts seriously. Journalism is not something you can just do. The internet age has made everyone think they can do everything, but the reason things like schools, degrees and professional associations exist is because they can't. Sourcing your quote, and actually seeking and naming a source, is literally so basic it should be a forgone conclusion; but if you just pick up a laptop and start typing, you might not do it.

 

You're trying to refute my article, which is actually little more than a fact dump, with an unrelated blog post. You seem to be skimming my posts and deliberately not addressing my points head on. I'm honestly starting to wonder if I've been getting trolled this whole time.

 

And Huff-po is only left wing in the severely slanted North American political landscape. In Europe they would be considered centrist, on the total chart of all ideologies, centre right.

[Spite]

Marx was not antagonistic towards religion because he viewed religion primarily through a historical perspective. Marx viewed everything as a matter of society which included economics as the biggest factor to society. Religion in his view was just a drug to stupefy the masses. It was not that he hated religion but instead just saw it as a failure. Marx stated "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness" and therefore strived to forge a society which had no need to cling to such things like religion. Thus in the end, a godless society therefore being Atheistic, Communism is an Atheistic Society.

I would disagree. I think marx saw religious structures as something which belonged to an earlier social structure, and something which along with those structures would probably have to go to enable his society to bloom.

 

However I don't think it was the spiritualism aspect that he disagreed with, merely the organised religion aspect. That of a naturally hierarchical structure which placed out dated moral guidelines upon its membership.

 

Marx did recognise that religion gave people hope in a world without hope.

 

In any case, socialism evolved before, around and after marx, and many socialist and communist groups rejected the mutual exclusivity of religion and socialism.

 

Here in my home country of the UK we rejected Marxism altogether and built a fabian theory of gradual socialism. One of our greatest political philosophers, and someone definitely worth a read, was RH Tawney, who was a Christian socialist and heavily allied the two traditions.