EARLY ACCESS: Armoured Skeptic Fails Hard on Canadian Law (Part 1 of 2)
Added 2017-06-27 12:05:06 +0000 UTCIt's finally here! Part 2 is filmed and just needs one possible extra source I'm waiting on, plus final edits, so it'll be up in a couple days. And I will be extremely happy to be done with it. This shit is more work than Hovind.
Comments
I agreed with that in the video re: the OHRC. I'm really unsure what it is you're trying to convince me of.
Logicked
2017-07-02 00:48:20 +0000 UTCThat law went into effect long before the gender non binary was really in a public sphere so there was little fan fare. But that doesn't matter, if compelled speech is bad policy it should be removed. This is a similar argument to the blasphemy law, even if it hasn't been applied it's still a bad thing to have on the books. You told me that, changed my mind on the issue.
Dan Richards
2017-07-01 21:00:03 +0000 UTCOntario's policy perhaps compels speech. But Ontario already has its own provincial law, and this changes nothing whatsoever there. So your objection to a national law based on a provincial policy that's been in effect for years isn't really compelling.
Logicked
2017-07-01 01:56:18 +0000 UTCTo be honest I don't know if he mentioned misgendering. I know he said he would refuse to use the made genders but I have never heard him say he would just use he and she. That type of language can be spun in many ways and I believe it has. He does believe in two genders and that they are linked to sex and sexuality. He comes at that from his area of expertise but I'm no expert so I won't comment further on that. Personally I don't really care if people are gay, straight, non binary or whatever. As long as you are hurting anyone else you do you. The only issue I have with this law is the policy that compels speech. I think everyone should be able to choose their own words. Sucks that Greg made such a bad video.
Dan Richards
2017-06-30 23:20:03 +0000 UTCYeah. It's frustrating. That's another reason this misdirected fear really bothers me. It distracts from the real issues. Peterson aside - because as I said in the video, I don't think he ever said C-16 bans misgendering - a lot of his fans are paranoid whackjobs who took it to mean that, and they're just not helping anything.
Logicked
2017-06-30 14:04:18 +0000 UTCCorrect, I should have said "the policy" written in a better way. Sorry for the confusion. Like your islamophobia videos pointed out, minor changes in language for clarification have been met with severe resistance and the litany of buzzwords that come with it. You end up hyperbolic panic all over and a difficulty getting to the real problems/solutions.
Dan Richards
2017-06-30 13:51:12 +0000 UTCThe law is written just fine. The OHRC definition which I cited...isn't. But that's a totally separate issue.
Logicked
2017-06-30 04:41:51 +0000 UTCEven if you look at most of what JP says in a different light the prime motivator is the compelled speech. That is something that gets lost in the other arguments but is really the strongest reason to oppose this law. The policy should be that you cannot misgender someone, instead it reads that you must use their preferred pronouns. I hate slippery slope arguments but I do think we are opening a door with compelled speech that I would rather keep shut. All the protections should remain just remove the compelled speech policy. This has also been JPs position. He has never once said the law should be scrapped, just written in a better way.
Dan Richards
2017-06-30 03:47:00 +0000 UTCI wish AS was a patron. I would love to have him all worried about this video knowing it was going to drop to the public at large tomorrow.
TheAtheistBrony
2017-06-27 23:46:54 +0000 UTCPetersons objection of C-16 was not based on the bill but on the policy under which the bill would have been enacted. In the senate hearing the lawyer goes over this policy which says that misgendering would be in violation. So misgendering is not in the bill and Peterson never claimed it was. Jordan was very clear on his position and those that went against him generally mischaracterized his position as Skeptic does in the video. Why he doesn't go after hate speech is likely because he drew the line at compelled speech versus words you cannot say.
Dan Richards
2017-06-27 19:45:07 +0000 UTCDamn. Was starting to wonder where you went, man. Sweet vid!
Marcus Pheonix
2017-06-27 19:14:04 +0000 UTCWell I feel a little embarrassed. Jordan B Peterson had me really worked up about that bill. I watched his testimony at the bills hearing and he was very convincing. So thank you for making this video and giving me another way of looking at it.
Myles Darling
2017-06-27 16:33:58 +0000 UTCHeh. Now just imagine how I felt reading all that to choose my extracts.
Logicked
2017-06-27 13:55:58 +0000 UTCYou did a good job honey its just I pause and read the laws you put up on the screen. And after a while the words start swimming.
Rosa Rocks
2017-06-27 13:48:32 +0000 UTCBut but but...people being wrong and dumb is fun.
Logicked
2017-06-27 13:08:45 +0000 UTCI feel about laws the way you feel about rocks. I know its important but it dosent get me hyped. I know this is important but eh legal language is a snore.
Rosa Rocks
2017-06-27 13:04:14 +0000 UTCOh no, a skeptic clone attacks Skeptic
adHerry
2017-06-27 12:32:36 +0000 UTCLegislation-involved videos are almost always more work that Christian debunks. Not always, #NotAll, and it's clear that YOU go into depth and detail with your take-downs of Hulk Hovind, but as a general rule... Law is dry, biology, paleontology, that shit's interesting to a broad audienc; law? Not so much :P Solid work, Logicked :) Can't wait for pt.2. However, as another Canadian, commenting on another-another Canadian's video about another-another-another Canadian's mistakes... pt.2 should definitely be part deux :P
JT Viper
2017-06-27 12:08:22 +0000 UTC
