|
the trump tutelage posted:What do you think the problem is, exactly? That discrimination happens at all, or that the wrong sorts of people are victimized? Workplace discrimination is bad but this wasn't a case of discrimination. Calling it discrimination based on sexual orientation is a major disservice to people who actually are discriminated against for their orientation. Straight men are not discriminated against in the workplace in any significant numbers and there is no evidence to suggest that they are. Quite the opposite actually as they are overrepresented in certain industries, and they are particularly overrepresented in positions of authority across all industries. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 7, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
infernal machines posted:It is, and they spend a rather inordinate amount of time teaching the parents how to attempt to refuse transfusions on their children's behalf. IIRC they even have JW legal counsel available, in case you really want your kid to die from traumatic injury. The real gross thing I've heard about is the Hospital Liaison Committees they send in when they know a member is in hospital and may be recommended for a transfusion. It seems like there ought to be a way to tell them to gently caress off and stay out of hospitals since their only purpose is to come in and give medically unsound advice, but I don't know how you would word a law about that without it being over-broad or having all sorts of unintended consequences or being too open to subjective interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
As long as we're letting people try to cure cancer with hemp oil, all fruit diets, and acupuncture, I don't think there's much we can do to keep folks from exsanguinating themselves for god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
The sad thing is the whole blood transfusion thing is all about an extremely broad interpretation of a religious rule being used as a tool to other themselves from society at large. It has very little merit but by sticking to this rule they have just one more thing that they can use to enforce their feelings of exclusion and persecution. The only reason why that cult is tolerated is because it's based on an abrahamic religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It is understandable. I don't agree with it but I understand there are legitimate reasons for women to be uncomfortable about male expressions of sexuality in certain contexts. My own feeling is that the reaction to this picture crossed a line and became unfairly puritanical or anti-sex, but I don't think the people reacting this way are bad people or that all their feelings should be dismissed. And unquestionably, if this man has a history of inappropriate workplace behavior then the laws and workplace statutes against sexual harassment should be employed to discipline or remove them -- though in that case I would prefer it happen through some kind of formal procedure rather than in the court of public opinion. I agree with you that talking through disagreements and challenging others positions is important. It is also important to be aware of context and experience. In this, the context is that the position the guy was removed from related to violence against indigenous women, oral sex is often portrayed in a degrading way, and indigenous women found the image offensive. If the conversation in this thread was a 'rational discourse' about violence against women, sexuality etc, then fine. But it wasn't. The conversation immediately went to calling the people who complained over-sensitive, shrill, prudish etc. I understand this is a comedy forum and all, but do we really need to react to women saying they're offended by calling them shrill? Not that it was you who said this, and I appreciate your generally reasoned responses on most issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
You know how you can't sign away a lot of your fundamental rights, as in you can't sign a paper saying you agree to be a slave, or carry a card in your pocket saying you're not allowed to vote? It should really be the same with medical treatment and 100% out of parent's control with minors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:As long as we're letting people try to cure cancer with hemp oil, all fruit diets, and acupuncture, I don't think there's much we can do to keep folks from exsanguinating themselves for god. It does seem like there's way more quackery allowed to make medical claims than ought to be legal. There's a Naturopathic Clinic near where I used to work that I once saw advertising "IV Vitamin treaments for cancer & more".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Entropic posted:"IV Vitamin treaments for cancer & more". Was the & More "Get Hepatitis from improperly sterilized equipment"? Misleading claims of medical efficacy should be outright illegal, but there are also issues with places that have no proper licensing, standards, or enforcement thereof providing IV anything. The places can't legally sell you a prepared sandwich, I don't know why they can stick a needle in your arm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:The PC's screwed up any chance that the Education Minister might actually step down by being so condescending and aggressive in their calls for her I read this too and I agree. I'm also glad people in the Liberal backbench stood up against party leadership though, it shows some of them have morals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
My wife and I used to have a lot of interactions with the Adventist movement. They're all about ridiculous alternative health bullshit, extremely bizarre diet regimens and the like. Some friends of ours actually ended up working for a health care center run by some other SDAs. These aren't just honestly held beliefs, there's some active fraud going on to show 'evidence' that their stupid regimens were producing results. and when they got to see the inside of these fraudulent operations it basically destroyed their faith in their religious institutions. Something I honestly don't see as a bad thing. Depressing, though, like a lot of people in that religion their entire lives were basically centered around a pack of lies. I also got to explain to a young man exactly what the awesome homeopathic cold medication his fiance was giving him actually contained. When he croaked out 'Great, not only are you giving me duck liver pills, you're giving me duck liver pills so diluted that the duck liver doesn't even exist anymore' I had to bite my tongue to keep from bursting out in laughter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
MULCAIR: "My question is simple: was he lying?" TRUDEAU: "Mister Speaker I answer that question in the positive, uhh uhh ,eh, uhh, yes, I am committed to restoring, er uh um (indistinguishable)" https://twitter.com/globalnews/status/806585356342566912
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
THC posted:Straight men are not discriminated against in the workplace in any significant numbers and there is no evidence to suggest that they are. Quite the opposite actually as they are overrepresented in certain industries, and they are particularly overrepresented in positions of authority across all industries. However, this is absolutely an obvious example of discrimination - like I said, if he had been a gay man, you would be alongside me calling out the people who called his post "sick" as bigots. Even if it was a straight woman who posted about receiving oral sex and some guy called it "sick" you'd be with me. So why is this behaviour bigotry every time except this one? I feel like calling someone's sexuality "sick" should be reserved for people who abuse kids or animals or date rapists or others who engage in nonconsensual sex. I say this as a total prude who never talks about his sex life and finds it uncomfortable when others do. They still have the right to do it despite my discomfort. Would it hurt so bad to just admit that discrimination against a hetero man has happened once ever in all of history? Why are you facing so much cognitive dissonance over the fact that it happened one time? If you have an argument that this was not discrimination, you could post it. I posted why it is discrimination, and all you've done in response is say "no it isn't" with almost zero justification. Your one argument was that he resigned and apologized: well, so did Walter Jenkins, and I hope you will agree that was discrimination. You could say why you think social media posts asserting, revealing, or celebrating one's sexuality should lead to insults and calls for removal from one's job. That is the behaviour you are defending, so please defend it instead of just dancing around it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Laminar posted:I read this too and I agree. Actually no, everyone was in full agreement, especially about this vote! No story!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Walter Jenkins worked in a place where homophobia was very common. In a time when gay people were being blacklisted and accused of Communist sympathies. Heterophobia is not common. It's not even a real word according to my spellcheck. There's no comparison. It's like comparing a guy who got asked to move out of the priority seats to Rosa Parks. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
THC posted:Walter Jenkins worked in a place where homophobia was very common. Heterophobia is not common. It's not even a real word according to my spellcheck. There's no comparison. How common does a particular kind of discrimination need to be before it counts as what it is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
He wasn't. Discriminated against. For being straight. If my grandma gets offended by a racy TV scene featuring straight people, does that mean she's heterophobic? gently caress no, she's just old and Mormon and sexual innuendo makes her uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
I personally view social taboos on discussing sex a lot like social taboos on discussing general health issues: I think trying to keep stuff like that down has the real potential to be unhealthy for a culture and while there are lines (which are not up to me to define) it seems like a net public good to increase the level at which people feel comfortable discussing it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
THC posted:MULCAIR: "My question is simple: was he lying?" When our political discourse is indistinguishable from old Simpsons dialogue vote quimby
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
THC posted:MULCAIR: "My question is simple: was he lying?" lmao reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THfiHQZVSw0 and the NDP loving laughing their asses off owns
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Heterophobia is when gay people are scared by my crazy eye.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
THC posted:MULCAIR: "My question is simple: was he lying?" hes a child
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Why are identity politics so bad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Why are identity politics so bad? uhh uhh eh uh
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
THC posted:He wasn't. Discriminated against. For being straight. The comments calling it "sick" and "threatening" were explicitly contingent on the fact that he was a man and that it was a woman who was going to perform oral sex. How else would it have been called degrading to women? It's his male heterosexuality that was deemed threatening. That you can deny this in the face of all the facts is absurd. But again, you are not putting forward an argument - just saying the same thing over again. Please, explain to us why someone posting about their (healthy, consensual) sex life in private outside of work should be considered grounds to call for their resignation. If your old Mormon grandma saw the Pride parade and was made uncomfortable, then should everyone who wore a sexually explicit costume there be asked to resign from their jobs? Or is it a double-standard? Are we talking past one another? Do you have a different definition of discrimination than I do? Let's make this clear: The Canadian Human Rights Commission posted:Discrimination is an action or a decision that treats a person or a group negatively for reasons such as their race, age or disability. These reasons are known as grounds of discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
please change thread title to CanPol Megathread: uhh uhh ,eh, uhh, yes, I am committed to restoring, er uh um (indistinguishable)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Entropic posted:There was an interesting segment on The 180 this past weekend about the ethics of medical consent when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. The fact that the person is being coerced in their decision making regarding blood transfusions, isn't giving informed consent (they do not understand blood transfusions if they're being told they make become gay from receiving one) and is otherwise signing these cards without a medical professional there is all pretty crazy. As is the fact that a physician was successfully sued for ignoring a card they had no way of validating as indeed the patient's own, contemporaneous wishes, applying also to that specific instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
There's no evidence they were demanding his resignation because he's straight. They demanded it because he made sexually charged comments. He will very likely be replaced by another straight person. So I reject your assertion that he was discriminated against for being straight. There's nothing in their statements that directly supports that assertion, you could just as easily interpret it as them being Christian fundamentalists who are offended by anything sexual. While that instagram, in a vacuum, might not be offensive to your or me, I can certainly understand how indigenous women survivors of sexual violence could feel offended or even threatened by it. Especially if it came from someone they have to work with, in a capacity having much to do with violence against indigenous women. Especially if it was part of a larger pattern of sexual comments and banter that was making his colleagues uncomfortable. I do think it's reasonable to apply different standards of decency in different contexts. A serious portfolio having to do with an epidemic of violence against indigenous women really is not an appropriate setting for sexual levity. The Pride parade might be a more appropriate venue for such things. Having said that though, the pride parade is actually very family-friendly and you'll have a hard time finding people running around nude or having sex in public. The Vancouver Pride Society is very strict about this, and I understand Toronto Pride is much the same, and people have gotten in trouble for it. They even made the nudists cover up as a condition of their involvement in the parade. I think even my grandma would not be particularly offended or upset by anything I saw in the parade. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
THC posted:There's no evidence they were demanding his resignation because he's straight. They demanded it because he made sexually charged comments. PT6A posted:If he's been doing inappropriate things unrelated to the picture that would warrant his resignation, then the picture is entirely irrelevant anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:(they do not understand blood transfusions if they're being told they make become gay from receiving one) I'm not defending the practice in any way, but no one is telling these people that blood transfusions will make them gay, I have no idea where you got that from. The misinformation they're being fed about blood transfusions is that there's a (high) risk of HIV and other blood borne disease, based solely off cases of contaminated blood from decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Entropic posted:There was an interesting segment on The 180 this past weekend about the ethics of medical consent when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I have, however, convinced a JW to get a blood transfusion, which ranks as one of the prouder moments of my professional life. infernal machines posted:It is, and they spend a rather inordinate amount of time teaching the parents how to attempt to refuse transfusions on their children's behalf. IIRC they even have JW legal counsel available, in case you really want your kid to die from traumatic injury.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
lolquote:OTTAWA — The federal Liberals are moving on their promise to build a political firewall around Statistics Canada, but the fine print of the proposed legislative changes would maintain the government's power to tell the agency how to do its job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:I'm not defending the practice in any way, but no one is telling these people that blood transfusions will make them gay, I have no idea where you got that from. I got it from the radio interview linked where the doctor describes how some JWs are told that transfusions will give them AIDS, and/or that if they get blood from a gay person they themselves will be made gay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
it's in the national interest to stop collecting information on the housing market in order to protect Realtors from perilous competition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:I got it from the radio interview linked where the doctor describes how some JWs are told that transfusions will give them AIDS, and/or that if they get blood from a gay person they themselves will be made gay. Well at least they don't believe homosexuality is a choice, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-b-c-teacher-fired-for-having-the-wrong-opinionquote:LGBTQQ2S (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning and two-spirit) will one of you loving retarded millenials explain to me what two-spirit is is this some furry poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Should have had a union I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
THC posted:Should have had a union I guess We're already seeing the fruits of these schools in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
I AM TRIGGEREDDDD
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
namaste faggots posted:http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-b-c-teacher-fired-for-having-the-wrong-opinion First Nations terminology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 08:22
|
|
