The thing is averages don’t mean shit when you’re talking about individual people, because individual experiences always deviate from the average, especially if you talk about average wealth where a few millionaires and billionaires skew the data for a lot of poor people.

But sure, let’s follow your logic. Black people on average are poorer and have worse jobs, so we need to discriminate in their favour.

Well, statistically there is also a lot of evidence that black people on average commit more crimes than white people.

So should I be scared of a black person I cross on the street? Following your logic, yes. Following mine, no.

Ah yes, selective discrimination based on race and gender is anti-racist and anti-sexist. So glad we advanced as a society enough for this to make sense in some people’s heads…

We live in a time where there are black people that experienced extreme wealth in their lives and white people that know nothing other than extreme poverty (this one has always existed), and to take nothing of that into consideration other than just the skin color is idiotic.

But hey, thank you for admitting that it isn’t actually about improving productivity and output at companies, but just to tick percentage boxes so that your virtue signaling intake is filled for the day.

What a fucking brain dead take.

How is wanting to treat individuals like… ACTUAL FUCKING INDIVIDUALS and not generic groups based on their appearance nazi-like behaviour?

If anything, it’s the opposite of what a nazi would do.

The diversity that creates that is diversity of thought and life experiences.

To me, the idea that you can just fill boxes with people from x race or x gender on the base that that characteristic is what determines what I mentioned above, is one of the most racist and sexist things someone can do.

As for the people I don’t know Salvador Allende nor Jacobo Arbenz, but Fidel and Che were two bloodthirsty armsmen that just picked up whatever ideology fitted at the time. There is a reason why since then until now people try to escape from Cuba into the US. Also, I believe the US only really took an interest in them when they accepted the Soviet nukes.

As for Martin Luther King Jr, he was definitly persecuted, but was it because he was a communist? I’m not sure of that.

Do you really want to use the Korean war as an example of the US oppressing communists? Really? You literaly just have to compare how both sides ended up.

Sure, go one and tell us who were the illuminated people touched by the grace of God that were just too powerful to wander around the Earth in the view of the CIA.

If it wasn’t for those pesky americans, the World would be the perfect kumbaya by now.

Ah yes, it wasn’t the expropriation and execution/imprisonment of competent farmers and the general failures of central planning, it’s all about them trade embargos.

So it was because of capitalism that the communist revolution killed millions of people around the world.

Uh, the more you know…

So you didn’t see the latest supreme court confirmation?

Ah yes, the truth that “anyone can be whatever they want for whatever reason”.

Didn’t know you were that disadvantaged that you need a big red arrow saying hyperbole pointing to the number.

It was very ableist of me and I am sorry for it.

Going from two genders for centuries to 100 in 10 years? Yeah, definitly not pulled out of the ass.

Do we also count harassment if the person being wrong just doesn’t believe in the pronouns, or just purposefully trying to upset you?

If yes, I guess.

If no, no.

The first point, I assumed when you said what you said was already considering it was purposefully (my bad, I guess).

The second point is up to you, fair enough.

The third in my opinion is almost guaranteed.

The rest, if the first point went how I thought would also be guaranteed.

Also, there would not be a visit to another court because, technically speaking, the punishment would be for not accepting the first punishment demanded by the court.

And my point is not that this is gonna happen for sure, but that lazy laws with (un)intended openings in general have always been harmful to everyone and we should strive to have things as clear as possible.

If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal’s order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

If I repeatedly refer to you by pronouns you don’t identify with it’s a pretty low bar to be considered discrimination or harassment, especially in today’s environment.

The rest I’m sure you can follow.

Removed by mod

Who is talking about names…?

In the link you sent, they explain that pronouns are whatever the person being referred decides, since there is nothing explicit.

So what is stopping someone from saying their pronouns are something ridiculous and if you don’t use them for that exact reason you’re in violation?

Removed by mod

Wasn’t that one about FORCING you to say whatever pronouns the person wants instead of just not allowing you to use bad words?