Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[mistermack]

It's hard to take someone with your kind of views seriously.

This is why I don't take any of your posts seriously.

You react to the person, not the post.

[pErvinalia]

Well posts don't exist in a vaccum. It takes a person to make a stupid post.

edit:

[rainbow]

The problem is that they define stuff that isn't racist and homophobic as racist and homophobic. Like "I'm against gay marriage" and "I think there is (or isn't) such a thing as race." Depending on who you talk to, those things are racist. Depending on who you talk to, even saying there are two sexes is "phobic." That's the problem.

Then go to your safe space and have a good cry.

...perhaps you could join a Dance Therapy class?

[mistermack]

Well posts don't exist in a vaccum. It takes a person to make a stupid post.

edit:

You missed the deliberate irony. Maybe a bit too subtle?

[Forty Two]

The problem is that they define stuff that isn't racist and homophobic as racist and homophobic. Like "I'm against gay marriage" and "I think there is (or isn't) such a thing as race." Depending on who you talk to, those things are racist. Depending on who you talk to, even saying there are two sexes is "phobic." That's the problem.

Then go to your safe space and have a good cry.

...perhaps you could join a Dance Therapy class?

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. I suppose you misunderstood.

If you're going to make a rule against racist or homophobic comments, or if you're going to say "oh, it would be such a bad thing to have a society where people aren't allowed to say racist and homophobic things" then the definition of what is racist and homophobic is a rather important factor. If you define milquetoast things that are hardly racist at all as racist, like, "where are you from? you speak English very well," and call that racist, then, yes, indeed, a society a that would not allow people say such things would, indeed, by a rather distasteful one.

[rainbow]

The problem is that they define stuff that isn't racist and homophobic as racist and homophobic. Like "I'm against gay marriage" and "I think there is (or isn't) such a thing as race." Depending on who you talk to, those things are racist. Depending on who you talk to, even saying there are two sexes is "phobic." That's the problem.

Then go to your safe space and have a good cry.

...perhaps you could join a Dance Therapy class?

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. I suppose you misunderstood.

You suppose wrong.

If you're going to make a rule against racist or homophobic comments, or if you're going to say "oh, it would be such a bad thing to have a society where people aren't allowed to say racist and homophobic things" then the definition of what is racist and homophobic is a rather important factor. If you define milquetoast things that are hardly racist at all as racist, like, "where are you from? you speak English very well," and call that racist, then, yes, indeed, a society a that would not allow people say such things would, indeed, by a rather distasteful one.

Ya-ya, suck it up, buttercup.

[Hermit]

...some of it is having legislative impact, like with respect the laws mandating the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people,

Provide the wording of the laws that mandate the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people.

...or potentially raising denial of the trans-gender-spectrum ideology...

So, legislative impact is a possibility? Do elaborate.

...to be tantamount to hate speech.

Mhhhh, tantamount. I take it that in this context the word means as good as, more or less, virtually the same as, much the same as. If you know of a law that convicts on the basis of someone having done something that is tantamount to having more or less broken the law, or is this a novel approach to legal proceedings somewhere? Either way, citation needed.

Don't bother with any links or quotes unless you got something other than Canada's Bill C16 to push your barrow with. You already trundled that one out here. Your kite did not fly then and nothing has changed to enable it to fly now.

Your hysterics are more entertaining than usual though. Interesting addition of hedges like "tantamount" and "potential" shows that you are not as certain of your case as you were when you presented it in May.

[Forty Two]

Ya-ya, suck it up, buttercup.

What are you on about? I've sought no solace and claimed no injury.

[Forty Two]

...some of it is having legislative impact, like with respect the laws mandating the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people,

Provide the wording of the laws that mandate the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people.

For example the New York City Human Rights Law - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 5b389ed35e - requires covered persons to use the pronoun or title that a person demands, even if it's not a real word.

Washington, D.C.’s Office of Human Rights (OHR). Stephanie Franklin, OHR’s director of policy and communications, told TheDC that “Any workplace environment in DC—private businesses included— in which supervisors or co-workers deliberately misuse a person’s preferred name or pronoun may be considered unlawful harassment and/or a hostile work environment according to DC law.” http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/30/legal ... itutional/

In Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.” The district has agreed to “develop official guidance documents” for “pronoun usage,” and “##vote iolations of the guidance will be grounds for discipline.” https://cei.org/blog/politically-correc ... -amendment

California is proposing a law that would impose potential jail time for using the "incorrect" pronouns.

And, of course, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.”

The trend is growing.##

##vote ...or potentially raising denial of the trans-gender-spectrum ideology...##

##vote So, legislative impact is a possibility? Do elaborate.##

##vote

Ze and Zir etc have a political and ideological component because they require acceptance of the transgender spectrum ideology. Under the legislation in New York, and if you raise transgender and gender expression to "protected classes" as they're doing in Canada, then you make it discrimination to say "there are two sexes only, male and female." And there is no shortage of transgender people out there touting the position that saying that is "hate speech" and even tantamount to violence.##

##vote ...to be tantamount to hate speech.##

##vote Mhhhh, tantamount. I take it that in this context the word means as good as, more or less, virtually the same as, much the same as. If you know of a law that convicts on the basis of someone having done something that is tantamount to having more or less broken the law, or is this a novel approach to legal proceedings somewhere? Either way, citation needed.##

##vote

Tantamount means "equivalent to."##

##vote Don't bother with any links or quotes unless you got something other than Canada's Bill C16 to push your barrow with. You already trundled that one out here. Your kite did not fly then and nothing has changed to enable it to fly now.

Your hysterics are more entertaining than usual though. Interesting addition of hedges like "tantamount" and "potential" shows that you are not as certain of your case as you were when you presented it in May.##

##vote

Well, when a law is "proposed" it's only a potential. Like in California. And, the issue is developing, so you are getting a lot of things that are not hate speech being considered hate speech.

But, I've cited several laws that answer your inquiry.

Employers who have referred to transitioning employees with the wrong pronoun have found themselves in the crosshairs of the EEOC. http://www.employmentlawblog.info/2015/ ... yees.shtml##

[Brian Peacock]

Referring to male co-workers as "ladies" could be part of work place banter, mere light-hearted ribaldry and badinage, but it also could be used to intimidate and disparage and, with repetition, contribute to harassment and bullying. That the law recognises that possibility is not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

[Hermit]

...some of it is having legislative impact, like with respect the laws mandating the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people,

Provide the wording of the laws that mandate the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people.

For example the New York City Human Rights Law - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 5b389ed35e - requires covered persons to use the pronoun or title that a person demands, even if it's not a real word.

OK. Point taken. Having read up some more on the issue, I don't have a problem with the law.

[rainbow]

Ya-ya, suck it up, buttercup.

What are you on about? I've sought no solace and claimed no injury.

You've been squealing like a petulant little child over this imagined injustice.

Grow a pair.

[Forty Two]

...some of it is having legislative impact, like with respect the laws mandating the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people,

Provide the wording of the laws that mandate the use of various made-up pronouns to refer to people.

For example the New York City Human Rights Law - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 5b389ed35e - requires covered persons to use the pronoun or title that a person demands, even if it's not a real word.

OK. Point taken. Having read up some more on the issue, I don't have a problem with the law.

I don't have a problem with the notion that people should be polite and cordial with each other, and if a person has a special request as to how they'd like to be referenced, then people should generally comply. I do have a problem with a law that requires the use of specific language, particularly ideologically charged language the use of which requires adherence to a particular ideology which one does not adhere to. That's the greater concept that needs protecting.

It's the same as freedom of speech in general. I defend freedom of speech drastically, however, if I go with my wife to the church she likes, I don't mention atheism, I don't try to argue with people, I don't bring it up, and I keep my beliefs to myself, out of courtesy to those people. But, I would absolutely oppose any law that says in my dealings with religious people I must do that, or I must use language they demand that I use.

That's where I'm coming from on it. I have no problem with trans people per se. I don't believe what they say about gender and sex, and I find it often to be internally inconsistent and illogical, but then again, they don't need to be consistent or logical. All I'm concerned about is what I'm being ordered to do by the State or other authority.

[Forty Two]

Ya-ya, suck it up, buttercup.

What are you on about? I've sought no solace and claimed no injury.

You've been squealing like a petulant little child over this imagined injustice.

Grow a pair.

I haven't alleged any injustice.

I've taken issue with the absurd notion that mathematics is a racist element of the patriarchy and white privilege.

But I see what you're doing. You're going down the road of the social justice warrior imagining they are "fighting fire with fire" by telling their opponents to go hide in their safe spaces, grow a pair, etc. However, it just makes you look silly, as the people you're talking to, in this case, me, is not asking for a safe space, nor am I complaining about any injustice to me or my "identity group" (I don't claim such a group anyway).

If you care to discuss how mathematics is white privilege and such, then make your argument. Attacking me as needing to grow testicles is just silly. It's also hypocritical, because coming from your side, someone telling someone to gain strength and/or a constitution by growing male gonads is ravingly sexist and misogynistic. But, then typically those from your side grant yourselves the liberty to use such language while denying it to others, and you call that equality because you imagine you're speaking to the privileged and the oppressor.

[rainbow]

If you care to discuss how mathematics is white privilege and such, then make your argument.

I have already explained to you that mathematics was invented in Africa. Please pay attention.

Some advice: