On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:36:34 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> While I take your point, I don't think the government is particularly
>> all that excited about anyone whose terms of release bar internet
>> usage from making a credit card payment (since most stores' credit
>> card terminals DO use the net rather than phone lines) - it's when
>> they find the newly released individual is accessing things like
>> (made-up URL) prettyunderagegirls.com they are concerned PARTICULARLY
>> when the newly released has a record of certain types of crimes.
>
>Yes, but if you're going to put parole restrictions on people whose
>violation will result in re-incarceration, due process requires that you
>define precisely what those restrictions are.
>
>Saying "no internet use" leaves a person in a world of uncertainty. What
>does that mean? Do they mean just no social media? Can I still log on to
>my bank account from home? Can I file my taxes electronically? Can I
>watch Disney+?

OK fair enough - go ahead a draft a term defining the sort of internet
restriction suitable for a person convicted of sexual crimes against
minors.

As for filing taxes, there are groups in our area at least that will
freely prepare returns for the indigent. But darned tootin as I judge
I would order software on his machine (and a strict ban on use of any
machine that didn't have such software) to record every URL he went to
- and both (a) strictly ban porn sites of any variety and (b) record
all URLs accessed with a report to be delivered to his parole officer
monthly or quarterly.

Similarly we had a case in Canada about a guy who attempted to kill
his wife and DID kill his two children and was found not guilty by
reason of a mental disorder. While he was under lock and key his wife
moved to a different community and somehow he found out where. Guess
where he wanted to be released to once the psychiatrists said he was
safe to be 'in the community'. In MY world such a request would have
triggered a judicial review of his NCR sentence ('not criminally
responsible') since short of online stalking her he had no way of
learning her new address (it was more than 100 miles from where they
lived when he tried to kill her and wasn't somewhere she had lived
before)

(If you google 'schoenborn case canada' you'd probably get more than
you wanted - at least if I spelled his name right which I'm pretty
sure I did - it was an uber-high profile case at the time)

>As a parolee, I can't just assume "they don't mean that" when it comes
>to something that could send me to prison if it turns out they actually
>*do* mean that.
>
>And even if "they don't mean that" in general, it's a helluva weapon to
>use against someone that a cop or a prosecutor wants to "get" but hasn't
>actually committed an overt crime or parole violation to hang on them.
>
>Like the guy who made the anti-Islam video that Hillary lied and tried
>to blame for Benghazi. There was nothing illegal about the video but (at
>the time, thanks to Hillary) he was seen as being responsible for a huge
>tragedy and national embarrassment, so since the guy was on parole, they
>went looking for anything they could hang on him to punish him for and
>they ended up violating him for "using an alias". Parolees are generally
>prohibited from using fake names to hide from police or to participate
>in gangs. That's the intent of that kind of parole restriction. In this
>case, the government decided his YouTube screen name was an alias under
>the terms of his parole-- something they'd never violated anyone else
>for, something that most people, if they thought about it at all, would
>have figured "they don't mean that"-- but in his case, they wanted to
>save face by punishing him for embarrassing the U.S. and getting Navy
>SEALs killed, so they said his YouTube account name was an alias and
>threw him back into prison.
>
>That's the sort of thing you have to worry about when a parole agreement
>says something like "no internet use". What precisely does that mean and
>can it be abused to fuck me over on a technicality? Because if it can be
>used that way, there's a good chance it will be used that way.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:42:24 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
wrote:

>Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>speech' presumably is.

That said - those that most especially loathe "blackface" will argue
till the cows come hom that even wearing such makeup is ipso facto
proof of "hate" - unless of course that your 'leftie' credentials are
up to date in which they MAY (but not always) forgive you.

Someone like me (financially extremely conservative and somewhat
socially liberal) would certainly receive no forgiveness even if 20
years later. But if you're a certified leftie - you are righteous
forever.

On Mar 14, 2024 at 5:16:24 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:36:34 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> While I take your point, I don't think the government is particularly
>>> all that excited about anyone whose terms of release bar internet
>>> usage from making a credit card payment (since most stores' credit
>>> card terminals DO use the net rather than phone lines) - it's when
>>> they find the newly released individual is accessing things like
>>> (made-up URL) prettyunderagegirls.com they are concerned PARTICULARLY
>>> when the newly released has a record of certain types of crimes.
>>
>> Yes, but if you're going to put parole restrictions on people whose
>> violation will result in re-incarceration, due process requires that you
>> define precisely what those restrictions are.
>>
>> Saying "no internet use" leaves a person in a world of uncertainty. What
>> does that mean? Do they mean just no social media? Can I still log on to
>> my bank account from home? Can I file my taxes electronically? Can I
>> watch Disney+?
>
> OK fair enough - go ahead a draft a term defining the sort of internet
> restriction suitable for a person convicted of sexual crimes against
> minors.
>
> As for filing taxes, there are groups in our area at least that will
> freely prepare returns for the indigent. But darned tootin as I judge
> I would order software on his machine (and a strict ban on use of any
> machine that didn't have such software) to record every URL he went to
> - and both (a) strictly ban porn sites of any variety

What's a "porn site"?

Sure, pornhub would qualify, but what about Playboy.com? Is that porn? Is mere
nudity porn or does there have to be some kind of sexual activity? If nudity
counts, what about the greats works of art, like Rembrandt? Would the fact
that there are nude women in his paintings make the website for the NY
Metropolitan Museum of Art a porn site?

What about sites with women in skimpy bikinis? Some people consider that
pornographic. Would watching Baywatch online count as porn?

Whose definition of porn do we go with? We can't go with Justice Stewart's "I
know it when I see it" definition when we're talking about throwing people in
prison.

See what happens when you start to impose restrictions like this without
thinking it through?

>> As a parolee, I can't just assume "they don't mean that" when it comes
>> to something that could send me to prison if it turns out they actually
>> *do* mean that.
>>
>> And even if "they don't mean that" in general, it's a helluva weapon to
>> use against someone that a cop or a prosecutor wants to "get" but hasn't
>> actually committed an overt crime or parole violation to hang on them.
>>
>> Like the guy who made the anti-Islam video that Hillary lied and tried
>> to blame for Benghazi. There was nothing illegal about the video but (at
>> the time, thanks to Hillary) he was seen as being responsible for a huge
>> tragedy and national embarrassment, so since the guy was on parole, they
>> went looking for anything they could hang on him to punish him for and
>> they ended up violating him for "using an alias". Parolees are generally
>> prohibited from using fake names to hide from police or to participate
>> in gangs. That's the intent of that kind of parole restriction. In this
>> case, the government decided his YouTube screen name was an alias under
>> the terms of his parole-- something they'd never violated anyone else
>> for, something that most people, if they thought about it at all, would
>> have figured "they don't mean that"-- but in his case, they wanted to
>> save face by punishing him for embarrassing the U.S. and getting Navy
>> SEALs killed, so they said his YouTube account name was an alias and
>> threw him back into prison.
>>
>> That's the sort of thing you have to worry about when a parole agreement
>> says something like "no internet use". What precisely does that mean and
>> can it be abused to fuck me over on a technicality? Because if it can be
>> used that way, there's a good chance it will be used that way.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:25:33 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
>days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
>matter.
>
>That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
>matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
>who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
>person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.

It's ironic you mention that word since on election night 5-10 years
ago I used it deliberately in the presence of a newly elected school
trustee. She reacted and I said "Franci I have known and supported you
for 10+ years. You KNOW I would never use that other nasty word that
sounds a lot like the word I actually used and I know you and I both
know the meaning of both." She acknowledged that and I said "In fact I
have both used that word and used it in it's correct English meaning
(I had been deploring one of her political foe's vision of the school
budget) and you know I used it absolutely correctly. I know your views
on the school budget and I know his and I don't think I was unfair to
him - he really IS tight-fisted. But again you know me well enough to
know I would never use that other word and if one of a school
trustee's greatest responsibilities isn't to promote correct language
use amongst the children of our community I surely do not know what it
might be!" (This quote is from memory but more or less exact)

Now for sure I was trolling her and treating her to an impromptu
civics lecture (and I know she knows I know that stuff at least as
well as she did and had in fact backed out at the last minute from
running for a school board seat as I was too busy with the family
business after the passing of a key family member who was also
involved in the business) - her public reputation was a tireless
childrens' advocate but rather light on finance and programming which
were my strongest suits.....as well as a demonic sense of humor - all
of which she knew about me) but I felt she had earned it with some of
the things she had said during the campaign.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:59:01 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
wrote:
>>> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
>>> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
>>> of mind, not the offendee's.
>>
>> Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
>> days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
>> matter.
>>
>> That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
>> matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
>> who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
>> person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.
>
>'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
>unexpectedly injurious. 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who
>does such things despite already knowing.
>
>By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>
Not just that - its also used to check who's paying attention as shown
in the story I told in my previous post. I still like the lady in
question but no question some of the things she says leave me thinking
"air head"

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:22:46 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
>that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
>person's thoughts and feelings matter.
>
>> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
>> already knowing.
>>
>> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>
>Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?

I just finished "Savage Messiah" within the last 2-3 days -- it's a
bio of Jordan Peterson and that last point comes through again and
again particularly in the extensive discussion of a particular case in
the last 1/3 of the book.

It's written by a NYC writer who is pretty good though occasionally
has a US-centric view that doesn't square with Canadian law or
completely basic facts about Canada (I at least know the US has 50
states - the author doesn't know Canada has 10 provinces). Still
worthwhile reading particularly for Canadians but for sure the author
doesn't know Canada nearly as well as he thinks he does.

On Mar 14, 2024 at 5:36:56 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:22:46 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
>> that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
>> person's thoughts and feelings matter.
>>
>>> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
>>> already knowing.
>>>
>>> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>>
>> Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?
>
> I just finished "Savage Messiah" within the last 2-3 days -- it's a
> bio of Jordan Peterson and that last point comes through again and
> again particularly in the extensive discussion of a particular case in
> the last 1/3 of the book.
>
> It's written by a NYC writer who is pretty good though occasionally
> has a US-centric view that doesn't square with Canadian law or
> completely basic facts about Canada (I at least know the US has 50
> states - the author doesn't know Canada has 10 provinces). Still
> worthwhile reading particularly for Canadians but for sure the author
> doesn't know Canada nearly as well as he thinks he does.

Just watched a vid of Peterson testifying before Congress.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rdKsO3NFv8s&t=214s

The first few minutes describe some details of the FBI's Jan-6 investigation
that I had not heard about and which should be alarming to anyone who values
the Bill of Rights.

On 3/14/2024 8:19 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:42:24 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>> speech' presumably is.
>
> That said - those that most especially loathe "blackface" will argue
> till the cows come hom that even wearing such makeup is ipso facto
> proof of "hate" - unless of course that your 'leftie' credentials are
> up to date in which they MAY (but not always) forgive you.
>
> Someone like me (financially extremely conservative and somewhat
> socially liberal) would certainly receive no forgiveness even if 20
> years later. But if you're a certified leftie - you are righteous
> forever.

I thought he claimed to be "in character", with no racial condescension.
If we're sure he lied, then, yeah, hang 'im. But I don't see we are.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:29:15 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>What's a "porn site"?
>
>Sure, pornhub would qualify, but what about Playboy.com? Is that porn? Is mere
>nudity porn or does there have to be some kind of sexual activity? If nudity
>counts, what about the greats works of art, like Rembrandt? Would the fact
>that there are nude women in his paintings make the website for the NY
>Metropolitan Museum of Art a porn site?
>
Good question - and don't forget the nymphs or tiny angels commonly
seen in Renaissance paintings - are those "kiddie porn"?

(rhetorical question obviously)

On Mar 14, 2024 at 12:47:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/13/2024 10:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <17bc7ef34c89321a$26$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>,
>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people
>>>>>>>>>> eligible for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly
>>>>>>>>>> identifying the gender of an individual). They got away with tha
>>>>>>>>>> so now they've upped the ante to put us in prison for life for
>>>>>>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>>>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>>>>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>>>>>>> speech?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>>>>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>>>>>>> speech' presumably is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
>>>>>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
>>>>>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
>>>>>> controls.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
>>>>> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
>>>>> of mind, not the offendee's.
>>>>
>>>> Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
>>>> days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>> That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
>>>> matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
>>>> who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
>>>> person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.
>>>
>>> 'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
>>> unexpectedly injurious.
>>
>> No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
>> that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
>> person's thoughts and feelings matter.

NOTE: In a current case against the ACLU, this is exactly what the ACLU is
arguing: intent doesn't matter. Only the offense of the aggrieved matters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bias.html

The case raises some intriguing questions about the wide swath of employee
behavior and speech that labor law protects-- and how the nation's pre-eminent
civil rights organization finds itself on the opposite side of that law,
arguing that those protections should not apply to its former employee.

A lawyer representing the ACLU, Ken Margolis, said during a legal proceeding
last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist ill will. All
that mattered, he said, was that her black colleagues were offended and
injured.

>>> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
>>> already knowing.
>>>
>>> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>>
>> Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?
>
> Expectation isn't presumption.

On 3/25/2024 3:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2024 at 12:47:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 10:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17bc7ef34c89321a$26$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people
>>>>>>>>>>> eligible for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> identifying the gender of an individual). They got away with tha
>>>>>>>>>>> so now they've upped the ante to put us in prison for life for
>>>>>>>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>>>>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>>>>>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>>>>>>>> speech?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>>>>>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>>>>>>>> speech' presumably is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
>>>>>>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
>>>>>>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
>>>>>>> controls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
>>>>>> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
>>>>>> of mind, not the offendee's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
>>>>> days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
>>>>> matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
>>>>> who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
>>>>> person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.
>>>>
>>>> 'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
>>>> unexpectedly injurious.
>>>
>>> No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
>>> that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
>>> person's thoughts and feelings matter.
>
> NOTE: In a current case against the ACLU, this is exactly what the ACLU is
> arguing: intent doesn't matter. Only the offense of the aggrieved matters.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bias.html
>
> The case raises some intriguing questions about the wide swath of employee
> behavior and speech that labor law protects-- and how the nation's pre-eminent
> civil rights organization finds itself on the opposite side of that law,
> arguing that those protections should not apply to its former employee.
>
> A lawyer representing the ACLU, Ken Margolis, said during a legal proceeding
> last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist ill will. All
> that mattered, he said, was that her black colleagues were offended and
> injured.
>
>>>> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
>>>> already knowing.
>>>>
>>>> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>>>
>>> Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?
>>
>> Expectation isn't presumption.

The article's paywalled but, if Ms. Oh had no reason to expect that her
black colleagues would be offended, the lawyer above seems to be full of
shit. And, since the ACLU isn't often full of shit, I'm guessing that
Ms. Oh might've unreasonably ignored a few common racial understandings.

moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 3/25/2024 3:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2024 at 12:47:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 10:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <17bc7ef34c89321a$26$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people
>>>>>>>>>>>> eligible for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying the gender of an individual). They got away with tha
>>>>>>>>>>>> so now they've upped the ante to put us in prison for life for
>>>>>>>>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>>>>>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>>>>>>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>>>>>>>>> speech?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>>>>>>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>>>>>>>>> speech' presumably is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
>>>>>>>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
>>>>>>>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
>>>>>>>> controls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
>>>>>>> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
>>>>>>> of mind, not the offendee's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
>>>>>> days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
>>>>>> matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
>>>>>> who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
>>>>>> person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
>>>>> unexpectedly injurious.
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
>>>> that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
>>>> person's thoughts and feelings matter.
>>
>> NOTE: In a current case against the ACLU, this is exactly what the ACLU is
>> arguing: intent doesn't matter. Only the offense of the aggrieved matters.
>>
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bias.html
>>
>> The case raises some intriguing questions about the wide swath of employee
>> behavior and speech that labor law protects-- and how the nation's pre-eminent
>> civil rights organization finds itself on the opposite side of that law,
>> arguing that those protections should not apply to its former employee.
>>
>> A lawyer representing the ACLU, Ken Margolis, said during a legal proceeding
>> last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist ill will. All
>> that mattered, he said, was that her black colleagues were offended and
>> injured.
>>
>>>>> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
>>>>> already knowing.
>>>>>
>>>>> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>>>>
>>>> Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?
>>>
>>> Expectation isn't presumption.
>
> The article's paywalled but, if Ms. Oh had no reason to expect that her
> black colleagues would be offended, the lawyer above seems to be full of
> shit. And, since the ACLU isn't often full of shit, I'm guessing that
> Ms. Oh might've unreasonably ignored a few common racial understandings.

The exact opposite seems to be the case. See the thread titled "Re: ACLU
Accuses Asian Attorney of Using 'Coded' Racism; Fires Her; ACLU Sued by
Government" for a reproduction of the entire article.

FYI: You can easily get past most paywalls by turning off JavaScript and
reloading the page.

On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:03:25 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
> authoritarianism.
>
> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>
> Progressivism!

Now not even truth is a defense to the Canadian thought police:

"I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential component
of the 'marketplace of ideas' which is itself central to a strong democracy,"
Justice Marshall Rothstein writes.

Unfortunately for Canadians who value the truth, Rothstein went on to say that
doesn't mean you won't face sanctions for uttering words that are true.

"However I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not
all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statement can
be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would
meet the definition of hate speech."

The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred, something
the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.

But none of that matters now-- Whatcott's pamphlets are irrelevant. From this
day forward, Canadians can be hauled before the various human rights bodies
and face fines, prohibitions on future speech, and other sanctions-- and
claiming that what they said was true will not matter. Neither will intent.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:03:25 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>> authoritarianism.
>>
>> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>>
>> Progressivism!
>
>Now not even truth is a defense to the Canadian thought police:
>
>"I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential component
>of the 'marketplace of ideas' which is itself central to a strong democracy,"
>Justice Marshall Rothstein writes.
>
>Unfortunately for Canadians who value the truth, Rothstein went on to say that
>doesn't mean you won't face sanctions for uttering words that are true.
>
>"However I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not
>all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statement can
>be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would
>meet the definition of hate speech."
>
>The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred, something
>the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>
>But none of that matters now-- Whatcott's pamphlets are irrelevant. From this
>day forward, Canadians can be hauled before the various human rights bodies
>and face fines, prohibitions on future speech, and other sanctions-- and
>claiming that what they said was true will not matter. Neither will intent.

Schenck lives! The Canadian judiciary has embraced the 14 1/2 amendment.
All hail moviePig.

On Mar 29, 2024 at 9:46:57 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:03:25 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>>> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>>> authoritarianism.
>>>
>>> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>>> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>>>
>>> Progressivism!
>>
>> Now not even truth is a defense to the Canadian thought police:
>>
>> "I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential component
>> of the 'marketplace of ideas' which is itself central to a strong democracy,"
>> Justice Marshall Rothstein writes.
>>
>> Unfortunately for Canadians who value the truth, Rothstein went on to say
>> that
>> doesn't mean you won't face sanctions for uttering words that are true.
>>
>> "However I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not
>> all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statement can
>> be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would
>> meet the definition of hate speech."
>>
>> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>> homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>> that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred, something
>> the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>>
>> But none of that matters now-- Whatcott's pamphlets are irrelevant. From this
>> day forward, Canadians can be hauled before the various human rights bodies
>> and face fines, prohibitions on future speech, and other sanctions-- and
>> claiming that what they said was true will not matter. Neither will intent.
>
> Schenck lives! The Canadian judiciary has embraced the 14 1/2 amendment.
>
> All hail moviePig.

May peace be upon him.

On 3/29/24 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:03:25 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>> authoritarianism.
>>
>> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>>
>> Progressivism!
>
> Now not even truth is a defense to the Canadian thought police:

It's Canada, who gives a shit. Don't you have anything better to
mentally and physically masturbate over?

>
> "I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential component
> of the 'marketplace of ideas' which is itself central to a strong democracy,"
> Justice Marshall Rothstein writes.
>
> Unfortunately for Canadians who value the truth, Rothstein went on to say that
> doesn't mean you won't face sanctions for uttering words that are true.
>
> "However I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not
> all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statement can
> be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would
> meet the definition of hate speech."
>
> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
> homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
> that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred, something
> the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>
> But none of that matters now-- Whatcott's pamphlets are irrelevant. From this
> day forward, Canadians can be hauled before the various human rights bodies
> and face fines, prohibitions on future speech, and other sanctions-- and
> claiming that what they said was true will not matter. Neither will intent.
>
>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:03:25 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
>> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>> authoritarianism.
>>
>> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>>
>> Progressivism!
>
> Now not even truth is a defense to the Canadian thought police:
>
> "I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential component
of the 'marketplace of ideas' which is itself central to a strong
democracy,"
Justice Marshall Rothstein writes.
>

So this knuckle dragger thinks Canadia is a democracy?

> Unfortunately for Canadians who value the truth, Rothstein went on to say that
doesn't mean you won't face sanctions for uttering words that are true.
>
> "However I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not
all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statement
can
be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that
would
meet the definition of hate speech."
>
> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred,
something
the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>
> But none of that matters now-- Whatcott's pamphlets are irrelevant. From this
day forward, Canadians can be hauled before the various human rights bodies
and face fines, prohibitions on future speech, and other sanctions-- and
claiming that what they said was true will not matter. Neither will intent.
>

>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 3/30/2024 1:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2024 at 9:46:57 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:03:25 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>>>> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>>>> authoritarianism.
>>>>
>>>> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>>>> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>>>>
>>>> Progressivism!
>>>
>>> Now not even truth is a defense to the Canadian thought police:
>>>
>>> "I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential component
>>> of the 'marketplace of ideas' which is itself central to a strong democracy,"
>>> Justice Marshall Rothstein writes.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for Canadians who value the truth, Rothstein went on to say
>>> that
>>> doesn't mean you won't face sanctions for uttering words that are true.
>>>
>>> "However I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not
>>> all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statement can
>>> be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would
>>> meet the definition of hate speech."
>>>
>>> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>>> homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>>> that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred, something
>>> the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>>>
>>> But none of that matters now-- Whatcott's pamphlets are irrelevant. From this
>>> day forward, Canadians can be hauled before the various human rights bodies
>>> and face fines, prohibitions on future speech, and other sanctions-- and
>>> claiming that what they said was true will not matter. Neither will intent.
>>
>> Schenck lives! The Canadian judiciary has embraced the 14 1/2 amendment.
>>
>> All hail moviePig.
>
> May peace be upon him.

If you guys take up a collection after these services, I want a piece.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 07:11:30 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred,
>something
>the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.

Is there in fact a legislated definition of "hurt" or is that
something "supporters" get to define hoping that the learned justices
will support them?

And merely by being 'hurtful' does that make it automagically 'hate'?

As for 'homosexuality being taught in schools' that would presumably
be based on grade - what is appropriate in grade 12 ofen isn't in
grade 1 (or other grades between).

Certainly it is not true (and I would oppose a judge who said
otherwise) that what's suitable for grade 12 must be suitable for
grade 1 and vice versa. For instance I'm fine with Macbeth being
taught in grades 11/12 but would be irate if my 6 year old read it. (I
read it at age 9 and didn't fully understand it but thought "Till
Birnum Wood to Dunsinane doth come" was cool! And then being surprised
to see how it DID come in the last scene...)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 07:11:30 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>> homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>> that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred,
>> something
>> the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>
> Is there in fact a legislated definition of "hurt" or is that
> something "supporters" get to define hoping that the learned justices
> will support them?
>
> And merely by being 'hurtful' does that make it automagically 'hate'?
>
> As for 'homosexuality being taught in schools' that would presumably
> be based on grade - what is appropriate in grade 12 ofen isn't in
> grade 1 (or other grades between).
>
> Certainly it is not true (and I would oppose a judge who said
> otherwise) that what's suitable for grade 12 must be suitable for
> grade 1 and vice versa. For instance I'm fine with Macbeth being
> taught in grades 11/12 but would be irate if my 6 year old read it. (I
> read it at age 9 and didn't fully understand it but thought "Till
> Birnum Wood to Dunsinane doth come" was cool! And then being surprised
> to see how it DID come in the last scene...)
>

We got hamlet in grade 9 (freshman year of high school). It was completely
retarded. They made us memorize 10 lines of the soliloquy or something and
we got 10 points for each line. We could write down on a test. We had no
idea what it was talking about.

I frankly prefer the Gilligans Island version.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:00:04 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 07:11:30 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>>> homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>>> that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred,
>>> something
>>> the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>>
>> Is there in fact a legislated definition of "hurt" or is that
>> something "supporters" get to define hoping that the learned justices
>> will support them?
>>
>> And merely by being 'hurtful' does that make it automagically 'hate'?
>>
>> As for 'homosexuality being taught in schools' that would presumably
>> be based on grade - what is appropriate in grade 12 ofen isn't in
>> grade 1 (or other grades between).
>>
>> Certainly it is not true (and I would oppose a judge who said
>> otherwise) that what's suitable for grade 12 must be suitable for
>> grade 1 and vice versa. For instance I'm fine with Macbeth being
>> taught in grades 11/12 but would be irate if my 6 year old read it. (I
>> read it at age 9 and didn't fully understand it but thought "Till
>> Birnum Wood to Dunsinane doth come" was cool! And then being surprised
>> to see how it DID come in the last scene...)
>>
>
>We got hamlet in grade 9 (freshman year of high school). It was completely
>retarded. They made us memorize 10 lines of the soliloquy or something and
>we got 10 points for each line. We could write down on a test. We had no
>idea what it was talking about.
>
>I frankly prefer the Gilligans Island version.

I missed that one - is it available online via a link?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:00:04 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 07:11:30 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The ruling stems from the case of Bill Whatcott, an activist opposed to
>>>> homosexuality being taught in schools. Supporters of this decision will say
>>>> that Whatcott's words hurt people and that he was spreading hatred,
>>>> something
>>>> the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal disagreed with.
>>>
>>> Is there in fact a legislated definition of "hurt" or is that
>>> something "supporters" get to define hoping that the learned justices
>>> will support them?
>>>
>>> And merely by being 'hurtful' does that make it automagically 'hate'?
>>>
>>> As for 'homosexuality being taught in schools' that would presumably
>>> be based on grade - what is appropriate in grade 12 ofen isn't in
>>> grade 1 (or other grades between).
>>>
>>> Certainly it is not true (and I would oppose a judge who said
>>> otherwise) that what's suitable for grade 12 must be suitable for
>>> grade 1 and vice versa. For instance I'm fine with Macbeth being
>>> taught in grades 11/12 but would be irate if my 6 year old read it. (I
>>> read it at age 9 and didn't fully understand it but thought "Till
>>> Birnum Wood to Dunsinane doth come" was cool! And then being surprised
>>> to see how it DID come in the last scene...)
>>>
>>
>> We got hamlet in grade 9 (freshman year of high school). It was completely
>> retarded. They made us memorize 10 lines of the soliloquy or something and
>> we got 10 points for each line. We could write down on a test. We had no
>> idea what it was talking about.
>>
>> I frankly prefer the Gilligans Island version.
>
> I missed that one - is it available online via a link?
>

https://youtu.be/MKMOClN9ITg?si=oIytIsGHXqVAkxmp

https://youtu.be/bXId5jOTxdg?si=qjF64sg386OWVDGz

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:39:09 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>>> We got hamlet in grade 9 (freshman year of high school). It was completely
>>> retarded. They made us memorize 10 lines of the soliloquy or something and
>>> we got 10 points for each line. We could write down on a test. We had no
>>> idea what it was talking about.
>>>
>>> I frankly prefer the Gilligans Island version.
>>
>> I missed that one - is it available online via a link?
>>
>
>https://youtu.be/MKMOClN9ITg?si=oIytIsGHXqVAkxmp
>
>https://youtu.be/bXId5jOTxdg?si=qjF64sg386OWVDGz
>
That was fun watching the parody - thanks for sharing the link

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:39:09 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> We got hamlet in grade 9 (freshman year of high school). It was completely
>>>> retarded. They made us memorize 10 lines of the soliloquy or something and
>>>> we got 10 points for each line. We could write down on a test. We had no
>>>> idea what it was talking about.
>>>>
>>>> I frankly prefer the Gilligans Island version.
>>>
>>> I missed that one - is it available online via a link?
>>>
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MKMOClN9ITg?si=oIytIsGHXqVAkxmp
>>
>> https://youtu.be/bXId5jOTxdg?si=qjF64sg386OWVDGz
>>
> That was fun watching the parody - thanks for sharing the link
>

:)

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.