Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Feb 8, 2012.
In an insane land, a sane man must appear insane. -- Spock
My son is going to Texas State and took a philosophy class as a first semester freshman. In reality, the class was about social issues. When I figured out the content of the course we had a long talk about opinions. The class was structured such that the professor would bring up hot topics of the day for open discussion. My son told me the class included black and hispanic students. I advised him that he was sitting in a mine field given the election along with the BLM activities. I told him that he needed to be very careful because I knew he was not fully informed on the facts of life for black and hispanic kids. He grew up in Westlake so it was pretty sheltered though he, like most kids his age, has read quite a bit on the internet which is where he spends an inordinate amount of time. But again, I told him that the internet was not about facts. I said, if you haven't witnessed anything with your own eyes then you are only able to present the opinion of your perception of information that might be an outright lie. I said, you should stick to the opinion that all humans have the same rights and then go from there. He's too young and naive to engage in a debate about these things. But I also said, if you want to be an activist (if that is in your heart) or a hard-nosed old man type who yells at the kids to get off the lawn then it's your life. Either way, it involves courage because somebody may be waiting for you when class is over.
Now to the real point. He told me that one day the professor made a comment about blacks having a higher percentage of children out of wedlock than other races. This is all my son told me. He didn't give me any context for that comment or what led to it. But what he did say was that the black students (mainly the girls; he said the black male students sat silently) objected to the statement. Not so much the facts of the statistic itself but instead they demanded to know why he said it at all. "What is the point of saying that to us? Are you trying to tell everyone that blacks have no morals?"
It was a good point in my view. I asked my son, "Why would you bring that up in a classroom? Is it teaching anyone something? Is it true? What if it is? What are you supposed to do with that information and is it necessary to study that sort of thing to get a proper education? And finally, are the black kids just supposed to benignly discuss it without any emotional impact?"
He understood that it was complicated.
Or is it?
@Sangre Naranjada - if you want an illustration of government bureaucrats turning a neutral antidiscrimination law into an arbitrary mess that effectively divides people into subgroups, this is an example.
You'll notice that it refers to Titles VI and VII. They are race and gender neutral antidiscrimination laws. However, mess around with the word "discrimination" (which actually appears in the statute) and assume that it includes "harassment" (which doesn't appear in the statute) and then define "harassment" based largely on the selective feelings and reactions of individuals rather than on comprehensive and objective criteria, and suddenly a law that prohibits race and sex discrimination gets twisted into something that punishes a woman for political speech. And lets remember we're reaching this result mostly by subjective factors used to define a term that's not even in the law.
Your analysis is much too nuanced and sane. It's much easier to just say that true is true, and that blacks need to get used to hearing the truth no matter whether there is a good reason for saying it or what the impact of saying it may be.
I thought the same thing. What educational purpose was served by pointing this out? Suppose there was a 300 pound girl in the class. Would the professor tell her she's fat just because it's at least arguably true?
Ha... my response is like George Costanza if I cued it up correctly:
As for the answer, you know we did talk about that (hearing the truth no matter whether...) but again it came back to his grasp of TELLING the truth and then dealing with the fall-out over being mistaken or the intensity of someone who doesn't want to hear it.
I take a backseat to very few on dedication to Seinfeldism, but I must admit that I didn't notice how often George snorts.
It seems I've watched every episode twenty five times each. The "Snort... articulate" scene popped right into my head when I read the comment about me being nuanced and sane. Scary... I have so much pop culture soaking up the grey matter in my head; wish I could sell it to somebody.
Comedian Steve Martin tweeted this about his friend Carrie Fisher upon her death:
"When I was a young man, Carrie Fisher was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. She turned out to be witty and bright as well."
He had to take it down because there was such an outcry from the femi-Nazis. This whole ******* country is walking on egg shells. Unbelievable.
I agree; that is unbelievable.
Until Hollywood casts ugly people in movies, this is utter BS.
The tolerant left (again)
Restaurant tells Nazi Trump voters to go eat someplace else
The truth is one only walks on eggshells if they actually respond when the phony eggshells crack and chaos ensues.
If your actions or words are honest and true, eggshells breaking are as harmless as sounds of wrapping bubbles popping. Coming from a guy who's been on both sides of the coin.
Most Texans get this! Those who don't we'll deal with eventually.
Interesting article on bringing universities under control. Link.
I personally think that people who throw the Nazi term around are unhinged. I had to unfollow (but not unfriend) a couple of my hard left friends on Facebook who were calling Trump a Nazi. They've calmed down about it now a bit. But they are the doomer type and it's ridiculous how dark their world gets on them. My cousin is another hard-core Leftie who announced that if you were a Republican you aren't welcome in his home. The thing is my Mother (who is a FB friend of his) helped raise him and he knows she's an old-timey Republican. There are others in our family who are Republicans (mainly Christian right types) and he doesn't care. He's basically an a-hole but the dirty dark secret is that he is completely estranged from his children and nobody knows why. He never talks about them but his FB page might as well be Salon or Harry Reid's website. He has emotional issues and overcomes them I guess with his "progressiveness."
Charlie Sheen's tweet following the spate of celebrity deaths:
Trump next, please!
Trump next, please!
Trump next, please!
Trump next, please!
Trump next, please!
Trump next, please!"
The Left is so tolerant.
It's sad that some liberals choose to be angry and bitter over political outcomes. Jerks come from all political stripes and are probably jerks in other aspects of their lives. Forgiveness is divine. Estrangement is the penalty for hostility and lack of forgiveness. Trump comparisons to Naziism is over the top. There are some concerning parallels in the delegitimizing the mainstream media ... and advancing media with little interest in the truth, but last I checked the First Amendment is alive and viable ... at least outside of colleges.
Many think simply believing liberal political arguments is itself a sign a person has emotional issues.
Check the comment section of this article and see the post by 1WiseLatina.
"Wilco conservative family values at it's best. If the couple had been carrying firearms, they would have been honored with a parade."
I've seen her posts before and it's pretty much the same. After reading the article tell me if you think 1WiseLatina is reachable or if she is emotionally impaired. I'm sure she's a Liberal. Of course, this is just one person and we know there are many on the right who have their issues but what can we do to bring people like this closer to reason?
I think it ridiculous to believe liberal political leanings are a sign of mental illness/emotional weakness. That's not the same as saying "wise latina" is exhibiting sterling mental acumen.
Not leanings; just the type I've described with my cousin and WiseLatina. I think the inability to remain rational and to basically be consumed by political thought is a sign of emotional immaturity which by extension is a sign of mental problems. I'm talking about adults here. Not children who are still developing.
I'm a Democrat but I think my cousin is gone. You can't reason with him. He will insult you no matter who you are if you even attempt to raise even the slightest possibility that Trump has some worth as President. WiseLatina is a troll and why are people like that? I don't know.
Sadly enough it's a thorny problem. Wise Latina and her ilk can choose to live in a silo where every event is viewed through a bizarre prism confirming a wacked out world view. Mostly in my circles I'm exposed to folks choosing to live in a conservative silo with bizarre wacked out world view. Obviously, you have to use tact and gentle persuasion to offer those folks a more realistic assessment of what's going on ... but don't expect a friendly reception.
I think there are a few factors at play. First, I think some of the bitterness comes from the routine sour grapes that go with losing. Nobody likes to lose.
Second, Trump's victory was a shock. Very few liberals saw it coming, especially among the smug, elite, social liberals who are now the dominant force in the Democratic Party. (The few blue collar-oriented Democrats left (like Michael Moore) did see it coming, but their concerns were dismissed as paranoia.) They assumed that even on a bad night, the blue wall was impenetrable and that HRC would walk away with this election. I think the shock they felt from being wrong is going to take time to wear off.
Third, they don't feel like they lost fair and square. Yes, Trump won the electoral college, but I can see how it wouldn't "feel right" to get the most votes overall and still lose. That's going to be tougher to swallow, especially when you consider the fact that if you're a big city liberal, the biggest impact of the electoral college is to weaken your political influence. In edition, they buy the narrative that Russian involvement was significant a factor in their defeat.
Fourth, if you're a politically correct, elite social liberal, Trump is a very direct slap in the face to you in a way that previous Republican nominees were not. Guys like the Bushes, Rubio, Kasich, Romney, etc. were formally social conservatives, but they usually didn't emphasize those issues and tried to placate those who disagreed with them. In contrast, pissing off politically correct social liberals was what Trump was all about. He didn't just disagree with them. He was openly hostile to them and made that hostility a centerpiece of his campaign. Furthermore, he appealed to and associated with the people such liberals despise the most and love to ridicule - middle Americans, particularly those who are Bible-believing Christians.
It's very hard to reach people like that. They live in echo chambers that reinforce their views on every level - political, moral, and even spiritual. However, it can be done, and I've even done it a few times (but not many).
First, you have to be kind to them. That doesn't mean you turn into a candy-*** around them, but you do have to show their views some respect, even if they initially don't respect yours. If you do this, it earns you the right to be listened to. This is the by far the biggest challenge, but it's essential.
Second, your political knowledge of their views and your views has to transcend the superficial. If you're going to spout Fox News or Breitbart talking points, it's not going to work. Those are weakly argued, and the liberal echo chamber is designed to overcome them. Find other points to argue. Better yet, come up with your own, but make sure they're factually solid.
Third, challenge them on points on which you can utterly disprove their views. Don't haggle over things that can't be proven one way or the other. If the other person makes such arguments, ask for specifics and objective proof to support their views. They won't have it.
Fourth, if you have agreement with them, point it out to them. It shows them that you're not interested in a pissing match.
Finally, if they concede a point to you, don't act like a jerk. Acknowledge good points that they've made and try to continue the dialogue.
All good points.
But as Burt Reynolds said to Eddie Albert in The Longest Yard when asked to throw the prison football game:
"I can't do that!"
Ha... I need to grow up.
Here's an interesting illustration of Liberals versus Conservatives:
Carson Wentz bought shotguns for his offensive lineman. The comment section has a lively debate about it. In fact there was one poster (who appears to have deleted his own comment because he was getting ripped) who was very critical about this gift as he was mocking "gun-nuts" and "gun-festishest" and that Wentz was tone-deaf "in this day and age." I remember his comments because I commented that he was being over the top. But gun ownership is a hot button and some Liberals want to round up all the guns. I don't know how you reason with them. But luckily, lots of Democrats like to hunt and feel safe at home...
Here's the link:
Understandable. And keep in mind that 90 percent of the time, my rap is a waste of time. Lol.
Music to my ears, Brother Deez. However, I don't like sentences with double parenthesis. Bothers me to no end. See, I can be rather irrational too.
I completely agree. Trump has many traits I dislike, some intensely, but he is miles away from being a Nazi.
What I find irritating is people who criticize others for calling Trump a Nazi, but then turn around and call Obama an America-hating Commie. The problem of unhinged extremism is not limited to the left.