Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

I have a choice between pulling an all nighter and turning in completely untested hackish code that is the wrong way to do this... or blowing past my deadline.

[Loud Whispers]

Assuming your life story? I'm pretty sure the only assumption I'm making, that you're not a feminist or negatively effected by MRA rhetoric, is self-apparent at this point. You place an inherit value on civility without regard to whether such is reasonable or unreasonable in context. If you believe that what this group did is uncivil and unreasonable then that is your prerogative, though I find your own opposition to itself be unreasonable. I see no merit in your accusation of bullying either. It's clear that due to how the University continues letting the MIA host meetings and such that this group has no actual power to be a bully in a meaningful sense. Thus the angry reaction to the meeting. Their "bullying" amounts to being snappish and disrupting a meeting on university grounds. I mean, sure it's not the best way to go about protesting probably, but it's hardly as bad as you're making it out to be and if the ones pulling the alarm were willing to suffer the penalty for it their actions fall under a precedent of civil disobedience.

Using the fire alarm forced them and anyone else in the University to have to leave, ending whatever they were discussing.

Forcing someone to do something is bullying. When that action is the cessation of speaking, they were forced into silence.

I'm not quite sure what else I'm making out to be bad. It is blindingly obvious; they were being arseholes and they were denying them the chance to have their speech. No matter what your cause this is not acceptable.

You cannot hold this to be acceptable because "their rhetoric is harmful." This is an argument used by so many people pursuing whatever agenda they want, righteous or no. It has never been an acceptable excuse for dickish behaviour.

It's along the same lines of "think of the children therefore you be quiet now."

[Akura]

My parents are talking about how my sister(and I don't know which one) is probably in the hospital for what sounded like suicide prevention. The problem is, they're not telling me anything, and all I know came from half a conversation I heard walking in the door coming home from work.

I have a choice between pulling an all nighter and turning in completely untested hackish code that is the wrong way to do this... or blowing past my deadline.

Do what commercial game devs do in this situation! (hint, it's not the all-nighter. Even if it is the all-nighter)

[Tellemurius]

My parents are talking about how my sister(and I don't know which one) is probably in the hospital for what sounded like suicide prevention. The problem is, they're not telling me anything, and all I know came from half a conversation I heard walking in the door coming home from work.

I have a choice between pulling an all nighter and turning in completely untested hackish code that is the wrong way to do this... or blowing past my deadline.

Do what commercial game devs do in this situation! (hint, it's not the all-nighter. Even if it is the all-nighter)

Release a half ass product charging a ton of cash and call it goods?

[Glowcat]

Apparently they were Equality Canada:

My antivirus says that site is poison.

Using the fire alarm forced them and anyone else in the University to have to leave, ending whatever they were discussing.

Forcing someone to do something is bullying. When that action is the cessation of speaking, they were forced into silence.

I'm not quite sure what else I'm making out to be bad. It is blindingly obvious; they were being arseholes and they were denying them the chance to have their speech. No matter what your cause this is not acceptable.

You cannot hold this to be acceptable because "their rhetoric is harmful." This is an argument used by so many people pursuing whatever agenda they want, righteous or no. It has never been an acceptable excuse for dickish behaviour.

It's along the same lines of "think of the children therefore you be quiet now."

I'm going to wind this to a close...

If they're repeating talking points they've ripped from the web they obviously haven't been silenced. What was protested was their presence at the University of Toronto and giving legitimacy to their group. Free speech is a right that protects your speech from being infringed by the government in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't mean everybody has to entertain your speech or think it has a place at their university. Many ideas don't deserve to be within 100 miles of a university except when being critically examined (e.g. creationism).

And yes, your argument is basically "don't be rude, therefore shut up and sit somewhere we can ignore you."

Oh and here's a hint about being civil: don't use "I can't take you seriously" when respectfully arguing with somebody. I've managed to suppress my snarky responses and I'm the one saying there are instances where incivility isn't a huge breach in the asshole vs. non-asshole code.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh and here's a hint about being civil: don't use "I can't take you seriously" when respectfully arguing with somebody. I've managed to suppress my snarky responses and I'm the one saying there are instances where incivility isn't a huge breach in the asshole vs. non-asshole code.

~Check your privilege~

This is you not being snarky? Ok.

If they're repeating talking points they've ripped from the web they obviously haven't been silenced.

The speech ended with the fire alarm. Definition of silenced.

What was protested was their presence at the University of Toronto and giving legitimacy to their group. Free speech is a right that protects your speech from being infringed by the government in any way, shape, or form.

The definition of freedom of speech is the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraint.

You don't understand just how valuable it is nor the scope of its operation.

It doesn't mean everybody has to entertain your speech or think it has a place at their university. Many ideas don't deserve to be within 100 miles of a university except when being critically examined (e.g. creationism).

So instead of listening to the opposition and addressing their points you would rather insult them and make sure they cannot speak. The loudest one among the feminist group demanded everyone listen to her, yet she would not give the same respect to other people.

This is supposed to do what?
From a practical standpoint no one is going to listen to you. In addition you stain your movement's cause, solidifying the stereotypical image of a radical feminist more interested in soapboxing about the patriarchy than actually entertaining logic and reasoning and campaigning for equal rights.
From a civil standpoint not only have you disrupted people otherwise not associated with those you were protesting, but the disruption you have caused is far greater than the supposed damage being caused by one person giving a speech to few.
From a Streisand standpoint you have supported and given attention to the cause you are trying to destroy.
You're taking a liberty if you think that mess is excusable.

And yes, your argument is basically "don't be rude, therefore shut up and sit somewhere we can ignore you."

Strawman. Protest is an inalienable right. Discrimination and unruly myopia is not.

They were noticed very well for all the wrong reasons. It is what they will be remembered for.
You follow the civic code so people respect you. They did not respect others so others would not respect them.
This is a very simple fact.

Know this, there are very constructive ways to protest. Or even better; join the seminar and participate yourself, ask questions or create a debate, have your own speeches.

No one is doing what they did back there to feminist seminars.
When one pulls the prejudice card, they should look at their own actions and reflect upon whether or not they have given others cause to hate them.

[Glowcat]

This is you not being snarky? Ok.

No, pointing out that you are not able to relate to a certain situation because your experiences differ isn't a snarky jibe at you. And this discussion is over.

[Loud Whispers]

This is you not being snarky? Ok.

No, pointing out that you are not able to relate to a certain situation because your experiences differ isn't a snarky jibe at you. And this discussion is over.

Declaring you wish to end the discussion and then listing all your final points is a rather big cop out.

[ChairmanPoo]

If they're repeating talking points they've ripped from the web they obviously haven't been silenced.

That they said their piece elsewhere doesn't mean that they weren't silenced at that particular event

Free speech is a right that protects your speech from being infringed by the government in any way, shape, or form

Uhm, no. Using coercitive tactics by agencies external to the goverment is still a violation of free speech (this should be self-evident). And the above qualifies as a coercitive tactic.

It doesn't mean everybody has to entertain your speech or think it has a place at their university.

"Not entertaining someone's speech", peacefully protesting someone's speech, or coercing someone into silence. These are three different things. The first two would have been ok. The last one wasn't, or at least not according to the principle of free speech.

Many ideas don't deserve to be within 100 miles of a university except when being critically examined (e.g. creationism).

That's a different debate altogether

[nenjin]

Well, congrats to you both for holding an extended debate without requiring me to lock the thread or report someone. It doesn't seem, however, that it's going to go anywhere productive. Can I be the guy to give you both a graceful exit so we can move on?

[Glowcat]

Don't worry, I fully intended to drop it was it was beginning to annoy even me despite my nagging need to clarify my position or deal with what I feel are misunderstandings. I'm clean now though, I swear!

[penguinofhonor]

This discussion sorta got drowned out, but I was on my phone earlier.

Bumping harassment to murder because someone happened to be mentally unstable because it ended tragically is not.

Crimes are definitely punished based on their result, not just the action committed.

Let's say I'm driving drunk and I hit someone. Not hard enough to kill an average person, but the guy I hit is particularly frail and dies. I'm going to get charged for manslaughter because I killed someone. Most people aren't going to care about bumping it up to manslaughter. Would you argue that, because I wasn't doing enough harm to kill an average person, I shouldn't be held accountable for that death?

Manslaughter charges exist for things like what happened to this girl.

[Neonivek]

Here is the difference however:

Manslaughter could have resulted in an ordinary person dying.

What those kids did would not have resulted in an ordinary person dying.

Would you argue that, because I wasn't doing enough harm to kill an average person, I shouldn't be held accountable for that death? Let's say I'm driving drunk and I hit someone. Not hard enough to kill an average person, but the guy I hit is particularly frail and dies

That is the thin skull rule and to me it is only acceptable in situations where it could have also killed an ordinary person as well. You can punch an ordinary person so that they die, that was always a possible result.

NO ONE can force an ordinary person through suicide simply by posting harmful pictures.

Manslaughter charges do not exist for things that happened to the girl. Criminal Harassment charges exist for what happened to the girl.

Once again remember she committed suicide, they didn't force her, they didn't put that thought into her head, they didn't force her down to experience the harassment. That is an important aspect.

If I punched someone and they were so offended by my punch that they intentionally lunged their head into the floor so that they died... How much is that my fault? Entirely?

That is the other major difference between the thin skull rule and this. This is damage self-inflicted upon the victim. Which is why I take this very seriously, so suicide isn't a revenge option and isn't glorified. "Ohh people making fun of you? Commit suicide and not only will people suddenly love you, but everyone who made fun of you will be tortured to death"... and before you say "No, people do not commit suicide for petty reasons!" I will point out that YES the triggers for suicide are petty.

In fact after this news announcement more people committed suicide BECAUSE they read this article.

[Flying Dice]

So the incredibly traumatic violation of a teenager followed by her complete social humiliation and ostracization isn't the sort of thing that could be reasonably expected to drive someone to suicide? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. 

[Neonivek]

So the incredibly traumatic violation of a teenager followed by her complete social humiliation and ostracization isn't the sort of thing that could be reasonably expected to drive someone to suicide? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. 

You are adding things outside their control or knowledge and adding things you don't know about as well.

As well... No not on its own. What happened to her also represents a problem with everyone around her as well... But I assume that everyone else is blameless as well? Only the biggest stones count?