This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[KeepTalking]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

You might want to catch up with the thread, now that it has been shown that Bomb was trying to pull a fast one, and the wording provided is not in the actual law, kis seems to have come around on this.

ETA: Of course the post you responded to came well after that point in the thread, so I can only surmise that this is a case of willful ignorance regarding recent developments in your thread.

Bomb was not trying to pull a 'fast one'. Guidelines on the use of the law will determine how the law is applied.

But they are not the law. The way it was presented, nearly everyone took what Bomb posted to be text in the actual law. He even leveraged that misunderstanding to say that "the law compels speech" when he knew this guideline was not a part of the actual law.

Unless you think an employer who calls a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will be found innocent of 'discrimination',

Only if they do it repeatedly and deliberately, thereby showing that they are being discriminatory. Just likely deliberately and repeatedly using the n-word to refer to an African American would show that they are being discriminatory towards that person, despite that wording also not being in the law.

it of course compels speech.

No, it does not. It provides a guideline for determining if someone is discriminating against a protected class.

 

[KeepTalking]

... the wording provided is not in the actual law..

The official guidance says how the law is to be implemented and it states what is required and that it will be deemed a violation otherwise. This does not need to be 'demonstrated' in any way other than by reading the text because it's literally there in the text. You seem to be talking complete nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. I have shown that the wording that some here were led to believe was in the actual law to compel speech, was not actually in the law, so it is not a law that compels speech. It is nonsense to say that a law compels speech when that law has no wording in it that actually compels speech.

 

[Metaphor]

Bomb was not trying to pull a 'fast one'. Guidelines on the use of the law will determine how the law is applied.

But they are not the law. The way it was presented, nearly everyone took what Bomb posted to be text in the actual law. He even leveraged that misunderstanding to say that "the law compels speech" when he knew this guideline was not a part of the actual law.

Unless you think an employer who calls a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will be found innocent of 'discrimination',

Only if they do it repeatedly and deliberately, thereby showing that they are being discriminatory. Just likely deliberately and repeatedly using the n-word to refer to an African American would show that they are being discriminatory towards that person, despite that wording also not being in the law.

it of course compels speech.

No, it does not. It provides a guideline for determining if someone is discriminating against a protected class.

The guideline says if you speak a certain way you are discriminating. Discriminating is against the law.

It compels speech.

 

[KeepTalking]

But they are not the law. The way it was presented, nearly everyone took what Bomb posted to be text in the actual law. He even leveraged that misunderstanding to say that "the law compels speech" when he knew this guideline was not a part of the actual law.



Only if they do it repeatedly and deliberately, thereby showing that they are being discriminatory. Just likely deliberately and repeatedly using the n-word to refer to an African American would show that they are being discriminatory towards that person, despite that wording also not being in the law.

it of course compels speech.

No, it does not. It provides a guideline for determining if someone is discriminating against a protected class.

The guideline says if you speak a certain way you are discriminating. Discriminating is against the law.

It compels speech.

A guideline is not a law. The law does not compel speech.

 

[Metaphor]

The guideline says if you speak a certain way you are discriminating. Discriminating is against the law.

It compels speech.

A guideline is not a law. The law does not compel speech.

Oy gevalt. Alright luv.

Calling a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will get you a guilty judgment under this law, but the law doesn't compel your speech.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, okay, so that is your objection?

Then it is still Woke government compelled speech, only not by law, but by misinterpretation of the law by Woke officials in official documents.



Fine, then Woke government officials interpret the law as compelling speech, and make their interpretation official.

No, it's not. It is giving a protected class the protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodation, and public housing that other protected classes have. The same law protects against racial discrimination, but it is not in the law that you cannot use the n-word repeatedly and deliberately when you are hiring, providing public accommodation, or public housing for African Americans. On the other hand, if you do that, you are likely going to run up against this law, because in practice one of the guidelines being used is that doing so is an indication of racial discrimination. The n-word is a well known way of denigrating African Americans, so there is no reason to put that guideline into print, though I wouldn't doubt that such a document exists somewhere. Transgender as a protected class is a recent development, and many people are not aware of the things that can be demeaning to transgenders and are indicative of discrimination. That is why these guidelines were published.

It does not compel speech any more than laws against racial discrimination compel speech.

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

It should not be difficult at all. It is acceptable to use "they" " or "their" or "them".

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But they are not the law. The way it was presented, nearly everyone took what Bomb posted to be text in the actual law. He even leveraged that misunderstanding to say that "the law compels speech" when he knew this guideline was not a part of the actual law.



Only if they do it repeatedly and deliberately, thereby showing that they are being discriminatory. Just likely deliberately and repeatedly using the n-word to refer to an African American would show that they are being discriminatory towards that person, despite that wording also not being in the law.

it of course compels speech.

No, it does not. It provides a guideline for determining if someone is discriminating against a protected class.

The guideline says if you speak a certain way you are discriminating. Discriminating is against the law.

It compels speech.

That's inverted. It would be compelled speech if the law determined you are discriminating when you don't speak a certain way.

In the examples provided, it demonstrates refusal to use someone's pronouns as 'repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms'.

'Compelled' speech would only come up in cases where you are required to refer to a person with pronouns or gendered language. The same is true for other protected characteristics. For instance, one might be 'compelled' to refer to same-sex unions as 'marriage' or same-sex partners as 'spouses' if their job requires that. There aren't a whole lot of cases where it comes up, but there are some. For instance, some administrative work around insurance benefits and other benefits, marriage licences, possibly civil marriage officiants.

 

[KeepTalking]

The guideline says if you speak a certain way you are discriminating. Discriminating is against the law.

It compels speech.

A guideline is not a law. The law does not compel speech.

Oy gevalt. Alright luv.

Calling a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will get you a guilty judgment under this law, but the law doesn't compel your speech.

No it won't. You can go to that jurisdiction right now and do exactly that, and you will not be arrested, much less found guilty of anything.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

No, that isn't a basis for a compelled speech argument. Whether it is awkward or not, in those cases where one is not specifically required to refer to people with pronouns or gendered language, the law isn't compelling speech. English grammar is making it a nuisance, but there isn't a unique legal principle being applied here which requires you to utter specific words as far as I can tell.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

It should not be difficult at all. It is acceptable to use "they" " or "their" or "them".

Non. Only if you already accept 'they' as a personal pronoun. And also only if you think there's no difference between referring to somebody with a non-gendered pronoun is inoffensive and indistinguishable from gendered pronouns.

 

[Metaphor]

Oy gevalt. Alright luv.

Calling a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will get you a guilty judgment under this law, but the law doesn't compel your speech.

No it won't. You can go to that jurisdiction right now and do exactly that, and you will not be arrested, much less found guilty of anything.

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

No, that isn't a basis for a compelled speech argument. Whether it is awkward or not, in those cases where one is not specifically required to refer to people with pronouns or gendered language, the law isn't compelling speech. English grammar is making it a nuisance, but there isn't a unique legal principle being applied here which requires you to utter specific words as far as I can tell.

Yes, of course it is.

Imagine you are a transwoman but I refuse to call you 'she'. In an earlier post, you have imagined that calling you 'they' would be acceptable. But it wouldn't be acceptable if the particular trans person objected, would it?

It would compel a particular pronoun no matter what.

 

[KeepTalking]

Oy gevalt. Alright luv.

Calling a transwoman 'he' and not 'she' will get you a guilty judgment under this law, but the law doesn't compel your speech.

No it won't. You can go to that jurisdiction right now and do exactly that, and you will not be arrested, much less found guilty of anything.

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

We've just been through this.

"Discriminating" against transgender people in employment is illegal.

Using the wrong pronouns against a transgender person is an example of discrimination.

If you think words outside a statute can't form part of law, then you do not understand anything about the law. Look up "common law", for example.

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

Also, why do you seem so reluctant to admit this?

If the law did indeed compel pronouns (which it definitely does), would you not approve of the law?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

It should not be difficult at all. It is acceptable to use "they" " or "their" or "them".

Non. Only if you already accept 'they' as a personal pronoun. And also only if you think there's no difference between referring to somebody with a non-gendered pronoun is inoffensive and indistinguishable from gendered pronouns.

You are out of date. It is acceptable to use "they" as a personal pronoun. It may be painfully difficult for you to use nongendered pronouns as personal pronouns, but it would not be difficult for even moderately intelligent person who cared to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

Non. Only if you already accept 'they' as a personal pronoun. And also only if you think there's no difference between referring to somebody with a non-gendered pronoun is inoffensive and indistinguishable from gendered pronouns.

You are out of date. It is acceptable to use "they" as a personal pronoun. It may be painfully difficult for you to use nongendered pronouns as personal pronouns, but it would not be difficult for even moderately intelligent person who cared to do so.

Non. It isn't about what the utterer thinks is acceptable, but what the other person thinks is acceptable.

If somebody uses 'they' for somebody who claims their pronoun is 'she', the person who used 'they' will be just as guilty as if they'd used 'he'.

 

[KeepTalking]

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

We've just been through this.

"Discriminating" against transgender people in employment is illegal.

Using the wrong pronouns against a transgender person is an example of discrimination.

If you think words outside a statute can't form part of law, then you do not understand anything about the law. Look up "common law", for example.

I am saying that this law is no different than other discrimination laws, and commonly with discrimination laws the things that people say to other people make one basis for determining if they are being discriminatory. That does not compel speech.

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

Also, why do you seem so reluctant to admit this?

If the law did indeed compel pronouns (which it definitely does), would you not approve of the law?

I am merely presenting that argument now, as it was misunderstood initially that the wording presented in this thread was in the text of the law. It was not, and I believe that is the first hurdle that must be overcome for anyone saying that the law compels speech. I have made additional arguments both before and after noticing that those words are not in the law that make my position clear. We are not talking in woulds in maybes here, we are talking about an actual law that exists.

 

[Metaphor]

We've just been through this.

"Discriminating" against transgender people in employment is illegal.

Using the wrong pronouns against a transgender person is an example of discrimination.

If you think words outside a statute can't form part of law, then you do not understand anything about the law. Look up "common law", for example.

I am saying that this law is no different than other discrimination laws, and commonly with discrimination laws the things that people say to other people make one basis for determining if they are being discriminatory. That does not compel speech.

Sorry not sorry, but that's eye-bleeding bullshit.

Compelling speech in a particular context is still compelling speech.

I have posted a link to the text of the law, please point out where that law compels speech in any context.

Also, why do you seem so reluctant to admit this?

If the law did indeed compel pronouns (which it definitely does), would you not approve of the law?

I am merely presenting that argument now, as it was misunderstood initially that the wording presented in this thread was in the text of the law. It was not, and I believe that is the first hurdle that must be overcome for anyone saying that the law compels speech. I have made additional arguments both before and after noticing that those words are not in the law that make my position clear. We are not talking in woulds in maybes here, we are talking about an actual law that exists.

The actual law compels speech.

If I were to employ a transwoman, but referred to them as 'he' and the employee objected, I would be guilty of discrimination and guilty of breaking the law. The law compels people to use the trans person's preferred pronouns. There's simply no other way to understand it.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Of course it compels speech, and kis has already pointed out why. Pronouns are part and parcel of English. The word "nigger" is not. I can easily write a book about somebody without referring to her race, neutrally or not. It would be painfully difficult to do so without using gendered pronouns.

No, that isn't a basis for a compelled speech argument. Whether it is awkward or not, in those cases where one is not specifically required to refer to people with pronouns or gendered language, the law isn't compelling speech. English grammar is making it a nuisance, but there isn't a unique legal principle being applied here which requires you to utter specific words as far as I can tell.

Yes, of course it is.

Imagine you are a transwoman but I refuse to call you 'she'. In an earlier post, you have imagined that calling you 'they' would be acceptable.

I haven't.

But it wouldn't be acceptable if the particular trans person objected, would it? It would compel a particular pronoun no matter what.

If you were required to use pronouns. Ordinarily, you aren't required to do so. You could refer to me by name, or at my previous place of employment, you could refer to me by employee number. More alternatives exist. Whether you could do that for just me or would be required to do so for everyone is something we may have to speculate on at this point.