The real version is the first guy says he won’t bake a cake for a gay couple, which is shitty, but his right. Then the second guy comes along and says he wants to kill the first guy because nazis also wouldn’t bake cakes for gay people, so the first guy must also be a nazi, and nazis all deserve to die, so this guy does too.

Then a rational person comes along and points out that both of them are being shitty and everyone loses their goddamned mind over it.

Sorry, I’ll hold back the snark. :)

Now you’re dictating how I feel? Jesus. I’m not going to say something I don’t mean/beleave because you want me to.

I didn’t imply shit, but you do you.

Reading comprehension. Learn it. You’ve read a basic statement and put a meaning to it so you can fight someone on the internet. Never said anything about how equal the atrocities were.

It’s almost like every government commits atrocities at some point or another.

Older millennial fall for this shit too. I have so many fb friends from high school that still post this stuff.

I mean, that’s fine, but no one world-wide is going to hear “American” and think anything but “a citizen of The United States of America”. So, what’s the point of trying to push it as such? For all the hate American citizens get, you’d think you’d want to separate yourself as much as possible from the title. Canadians certainly won’t like being called Americans, that’s for sure.

You do you, call me what you want, rail against what I’ve written and have a great day. :)

I don’t think you’re being unfair, I think you are confusing straight up facts with no opinion bias whatsoever as positive, when in fact it’s just neutral. I didn’t put anything that sheds a positive or negative light on him on purpose. The fact that you are so angry and hateful towards him that you can’t see anything but glowing positives from what I wrote is a you problem.

I didn’t say you were claiming to be neutral, I said your perception of what neutral is is skewed. You get mad at me for not using a single opinionated word or descriptor both good and bad, and list angrily a bunch of negative words and descriptors that you’re mad I left out, then tell me yeah I’m more neutral than you are but I should be less neutral and more negative?

Seriously, it’s not healthy or intelligent to be so skewed you can’t tell the difference.

It’s an issue of what a private board can cover and enforce their rules over and what they can’t. Anything they can’t is government.

It’s a bit of a gray area. The issue, as far as I can tell, is whether or not he’s speaking in a professional manor on his social media, as he would be expected to with any patient he sees.

Sorry, I said dead name but I meant pronouns. From your very link:

“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

This was, from what I know of it, the way it enforces people to use specific speech, which is what he didnt like. Its not banning speech, it’s enforcement of using correct speech. There are no protections for gay people along the lines of forced speech, that I know of.

I’m not being disingenuous, I purposely left out my personal feelings on the matter and just reiterated actions taken.

I looked into the judges’ actual ruling some more, and it was a combination of things. I’d heard the college reacted to his tweets based on criticism towards Trudeau, and it is, but also included tweets about Paige and the plus sized model on sports illustrated (or one of the sports mags).

His claim was that the college board was overstepping their bounds and shouldn’t suspend his license due to what he says outside of the profession, and the board claimed that because he says on social media that his qualifications for speaking about his opinions are because he’s a phychiatrist, that he is speaking in a professional manner. The judge said that while it does impact his free speech in a small way, he can’t both claim to be speaking outside of his profession and tell people he has these opinions because he’s a psychologist at the same time.

I never said anywhere in my post that he is fighting for free speech, just that that was the reason he says he spoke up in the first place, and nowhere in my post did I say everyone hates him, nor did I give my personal take on the hatred he receives online. Your response, which is filled with personal feelings, whether right or wrong, is heavily opinionated. Mine was just laying out actions.

And I didn’t blame Trudeau for anything, I just said those tweets are what the collage board responded too. And I was correct, I just didn’t know it included the other tweets I listed here as well.

I get that you hate the guy, but maybe work on your reading comprehension? To take what I wrote and boil it down to what you did is wild.

He was a university professor in Canada. He stepped into the media light after Canada was set to pass a law criminalizing dead naming someone. Peterson became very outspoken against this law because it wasn’t a law banning speech, it was a law enforcing you to use specific speech.

A video of some trans students confronting him went viral, which thrust him into popularity. It’s an interesting video, I suggest everyone watch it. After that, the law was put in place, and Peterson got in trouble with the university, and (quit? Was fired? I forget which).

There are two notable events after the first that everyone here is talking about. Due to the media attention, Peterson sought out therapy and was prescribed benzos, which he quickly became addicted to. He kinda fell out of the media light for a bit, and it turns out he was not going through withdrawal very well, so he and his family flew to Russia, where they induced a coma and he was able to come off of the benzos. I know that he did a podcast with his daughter where they go through exactly what happened, if you’re curious as yo his experience (though I’m sure there’s a summary on wiki or something)

The second event is that (one of?) his licenses was pulled by a college board of some sort after he criticized Trudeau on twitter over something, and he was ordered to go to “social media reeducation” training. He took them to court over it and the judge ruled that yes, the board’s ruling was an infringement on his free speech, but since they’re a private board they can withhold his license until they see fit.

And that sums up everything as neutrally as I can get.

No, certain corporate landlords, like Blackrock, is even. Most small-scale landlords are not inherently evil because they rent out their properties. Having a few is not “hoarding.”

Yeah, dozens of us remain! Dozens!!

Small-scale landlords also usually have full time jobs and use rent to supplement their income. Not every landlord is just rolling in cash.

Huh… so interesting. I need regular, uninterrupted vibration in order to get that build up… can I ask what the in-between is like for you in terms of building up to an orgasm? Using that mode is like edging for me without ever getting a payoff, like, it just starts from the beginning every time.