Dumb Political Correctness

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Like I've said before, they get a lot of self-worth out of being better than other people, especially the supposedly "well-educated." (When it comes to politics, "well-educated" is increasingly coming to mean mal-educated.) Better means smarter but most of all, more moral. If you think your opposition is immoral and especially if society cheers you on, you're going to be obnoxious about it.

    Many on the Left are falling into this, and it's not necessarily the far Left. Most liberal friends I have are like this to a significant extent. They aren't like that with me for two reasons. First, I'm better educated than they are, and they worship academic credentials. Second, I won't take their ******** and will shellack them if pressed. They are well-educated, but they aren't as smart as they think they are.

    For example, I'll bet your cousin's wife was quieter when your dad was a little younger and more willing to mop the floor with her.

    I don't think it's about the trans deserving normalization as much as it's about marginalizing the traditional "normal," which is basically Westernized Christian 2-parent families. Anything that craps on them or what they believe and value, the Left celebrates. That is the common denominator. Furthermore, as a group starts to resemble the "normal," they lose favor with the Left. That's why Jews are losing their status. They may not be Christian, but there's a lot of similarity in terms of culture and values.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    France today vs Poland today

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    'It case anyone didn't already know, the yellow vests are an item drivers in France are required by law to carry in their vehicle at all times while driving. A bit of government control of their lives the protesters are turning back on them. The vests are a symbol.'
     
  4. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    Two carefully-selected still images isn't really a convincing way to get any point across.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    When I was a child I was sure we would have flying cars by 2018

    Instead, we have this

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Is Macron just trolling everyone?

    "Mr Macron has insisted that fuel prices have to rise in line with green initiatives made necessary by the Paris Climate Change agreement."
     
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    So Charlie Brown is racist
    But Democrats have no problem with this guy

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    What's pathetic about this is that back when these cartoons were made, even having a black character portrayed positively was a major statement of inclusion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Deconstruction is in full force once Charlie Brown gets thrown in the shredder too.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 1
    • poop poop x 1
  13. mb227

    mb227 de Plorable

    Sad how those whining about the chairs fail to note that few of them match. Further, ANYONE that ever went to a block party in the 70's would never have seen matching chairs around a table that size. It was usually a mish-mash of patio chairs plus some scrubs dragged from the nearest kitchen tables...
     
  14. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    I provided the link for a reason. Not so I could go back and type the answers out word for word. If you don't want to believe me and claim it's neutral and fair, then that's your right. Or you could wait to spin it until AFTER you read it.

    And by the way, you admit you didn't read it, but you KNOW that it's a neutral approach. That's pretty rich.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Thought you might want to defend the accusation. Too much to expect in THIS echo chamber, unfortunately.
     
    • poop poop x 1
  16. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Wait Prod??
    Husker is commenting on a link that he admitted he did not read?
    :lmao:
    He must think he is Nancy Pelosi.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Why would I care about defending an accusation to someone who isn't interested in whether it's true or not and can't be bothered to read it for himself, but goes right to "echo chamber right-winger" as his default explanation with no evidence whatsoever?

    Since I can't copy and paste the entire thread of comments and responses, I would have to give you my summary and my impressions, which you wouldn't believe anyway, because it would be me telling you what it said, and I'm just an echo chamber right-winger so I probably got it wrong or somehow found a way to misunderstand it.

    Believe what you want. I really don't care.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Generally you draw the line at causing physical harm or inciting others to cause physical harm (which is a high legal standard). Where it gets dicey is when the physical harm is done voluntarily. For example, what if the woman chooses FGM? Remember, we can't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

    Also, where does the line get drawn? We circumcise infant boys all the time for religious or cultural reasons, and obviously we don't get their consent. If voluntary FGM is criminalized, I'm not sure why involuntary circumcision shouldn't be.
     
  19. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Some on this board may not ask for supporting evidence to liberal bashing but I was hoping for more from a former journalist. The echo chamber was a reference to the West Mall where the only thing that is now challenged is the degree to which the left is corrupt and the right is "right".

    Ok. You had no intention of supporting your argument. I'll have to trust you then. I'm sure your bias is unfallable. Welcome to debate on the West Mall.

    Btw-I didnt call you a right-winger or anything of the sort. Take a look at your first response to my question. I will say you were once one of the more rational individuals on this board. Now you appear to be the infamous "snowflake" that most on this board rail on the left. Snowflakes pointing at snowflakes.
     
    • poop poop x 2
  20. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    I edited this several times as I kept thinking about it. It's not the be-all, end all but it opens up the points that we debate in some ways.

    I think it's clear the "bias" on West Mall is to the right. I also think you are mainly downplaying the things from the Left that alarms those on the right such as the idea of open borders, the attempts by the Left to use immigration in general as a weapon against Trump, the refusal to admit that Obama deported over 3 million people without a peep from the media which has now been replaced by hysteria and hatred, the redistribution of wealth in the name of climate change, the slippery slope of the Paris Agreement (apparently so-called an agreement to avoid the requirement that it be ratified by Congress; i.e. it's not a treaty and the sitting President of the US at the time went along with this) to subordinating our national interests to the UN, the socialist revolution represented by Ocasio-Cortez, the gender issues, the violence that seems to occur far too often when things don't go the way ANTIFA or BLM desire, intimidating right-wingers/Republicans in restaurants or at their homes, the accusations of racism recently exemplified by the attacks on Charlie Brown, the lack of support for Trump standing up to China, a despotic, aggressive, communist nation that does not share the American values of environmental and worker protections etc.

    Then there is the media. It's hard for me not to believe they are attacking Trump for ideological reasons as opposed to being sincere, unbiased observers and reporters of the actions of our government. Does Fox balance out MSNBC, CNN, The New York times etc? For instance, on Yahoo's home page, it is flooded daily with bloggers bashing Trump. DAILY. No matter what he does or says. There is zero balance and this is Yahoo, a very influential and modern day company. I also know several friends on Facebook who have been put into "time-out" while my Liberal friends never do no matter their comments (and they are not nice and balanced). My son is afraid to say anything political in class at Texas State unless it is Left-wing hatred of Trump. The students are emotionally aggressive and looking for a confrontation. This is an absolute fact. I suppose one could say "welcome to the world as lived by minorities for centuries prior." Yes, welcome to it. Meaning the Left is as wrong today as those who oppressed minorities were wrong before. Not to the degree of slavery or Jim Crow but to the degree that fear exists and aggression is unfettered.

    So this to me is where things are coming from the right-wing point of view.

    I believe you are sincere in your Liberal beliefs. But the things I mention above are not so much the what, but the how in which they are being achieved. I believe (as did Barbara Jordan) totally and completely in our Constitution. And change is available through amendments as opposed to changing the intent of laws through the courts because society itself has "changed." That is not the method. And unfortunately for some and gratifyingly for others, the electoral college is still with us. That is the method. It's the Constitution. Sorry if it doesn't work out the way some people wish.

    I just don't see the Liberal elite caring about the Constitution. It is too slow for change. It is frustrating them.

    That's the point of it in many ways. I am resigned to appreciating gridlock because I don't trust total power in either hands. And if Donald Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor then so be it. Welcome Mr. Pence. But I see NOTHING yet but people like Beto came out saying, "I'd vote for impeachment right now." Well that was reckless for him to say that in my opinion and only illustrated that the electorate was sucked in by his cult of personality. He was parroting the DNC talking points in a smooth manner as he rode his skateboard.

    I don't like that. His being a cool dude only annoyed me. It proved how shallow people are. It was actually pretty sad to me.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  21. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    Now, all that being said, I will list some of the things I don't like about the Republicans:

    1) Donald Trump's tweets and bombastic personality and his failure to unequivocally attack Nazi's without the qualification of there's bad people on both sides. I consider this to be a huge mistake on his part (I don't think he is a Nazi sympathizer) and has been exploited (the white privilege and nationalism campaign). I'm not necessarily against his immigration policies, concerns about ME terrorists or his reasserting US economic interests around the globe; it's just his style makes it difficult to stomach.
    2) The way the Garland SCOTUS nomination was handled. Maybe Mr. Deez can explain this but there must be some sort of time frame to force the hearings/vote. How long can you drag it out? I understand the outrage on the Left over this.
    3) The Dominionists (aka rapturists) and their influence. I am a Democrat for religious reasons alone: Gay marriage; I'm in favor of it. I would not favor an outright ban on abortion.
    4) The clear problems with racism we still see on the right (if not the politicians then some of their constituents). I consider racism to be the biggest problem facing Republicans as the church, Jesus and God are very important in the black and Latino community. Yet they don't vote their beliefs for some reason.
    5) My belief that without environmentalist we would see the destruction of our environment by ruthless businessmen. I believe this 100%.
    6) The apparent hypocrisy about the deficit.

    That's not all of it, but I wanted to be open about it.
     
  22. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    On voluntary FGM I would really question how truly voluntary it can be for an aware knowledgeable about the procedure woman versus a woman facing strong social/cultural pressures.
     
  23. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    While I don't agree with your take on gay marriage and that racism is this huge thing that the media have lead us to believe, I do applaud the fact that you have your own opinions that you are willing and able to articulate, as opposed to being in lock step with either party.

    Neither Dems or Reps have platforms that I can support 100% and I would suggest that if you find yourself agreeing with either party consistently, then you are a SHEEP. Rather than weighing each issue and deciding on your own, you have gone into "my team vs your team" bunker mode and you're willing to accept crap just because your team said so.
     
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "If we can effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation, we will have won that country. Therefore, there must be continued propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of citizens in general..."
    --- Vladimir Lenin

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Aren't FGM and circumcision two totally different things? One is removal of superfluous skin and the other is the damaging of an organ. I don't see how the acceptance of one allows for the other.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  26. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    I appreciate the civil response. Rephrasing a Blue Oyster Cult song:

    "I may be a lamb awaiting the slaughter but I ain't no sheep for you to reap."

    My politics are a combination of ideals/values and my life experiences. Without arguing the so what issue of choice to have sex with your own gender on a just because basis, it's not in my power or knowledge to say that a human cannot be born gay. And if they can be born gay then it's not a moral issue (According to whom? The Bible/God which in and of itself is not the law). It's only a latent revelation to the baby and those who come to know him/her. It's just not my call to make to deny the love that exists between two gay people. It also does not harm me in anyway nor am I tempted to be gay. So I will not be the one to say no.

    Abortion is more complicated. I am somewhere in between life begins at conception and a viable baby in the womb. I believe some things are intensely personal and to deny a woman the right to an abortion before viability is not in the state's interest to my way of thinking. I am not one of those though who is impressed by arguments that I should allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy if I'm not willing to support her to the degree my tax dollars make their way to her bank account. It's blackmail: "Too bad if I got drunk and pregnant. If you won't support me and my baby then I will kill it." Nope. Not impressed. I'm not impressed with the feminists who are so aggressive about it and I'm not impressed that to them a fetus appears to have the moral equivalency of a tonsil or an appendix.

    I have personal experience with abortions. I know for a fact it wasn't an easy decision for the three women (one a relative) and they are haunted by it forty years later. They had their reasons and none of these were viable babies. And I cannot in good conscience as a grown man who has had a vasectomy pretend it's so easy to practice birth control at a young age. I also have a daughter. I can't look you in the eye and tell you that I would advise her to carry the baby to term if her pregnancy was unwanted or worse, via a rape.

    I have to live with these opinions and it's between God and myself; I'm just not going to give the government power to say no. It is a matter of conscience though I do support protections for viable babies in the womb. I don't know all the laws but I'm just sketching this out for you.

    As for racism, it is a very complicated matter with much anecdotal evidence fired by emotion. It is my personal opinion that the human mind is a very fragile thing, unable to heal like a cut on the skin and extremely vulnerable to suggestion and trauma. We can say from a purely academic standpoint that the race problems of today pale in comparison to slavery, lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Those days are over. But in my opinion, the black community is culturally impacted by their legacy in America and it is rational and normal to me that they are not moved by the historical icons of America such as the flag or the national anthem. I don't blame them for passing this legacy of distrust and anger to their children. I wish it wasn't so. But it is and they have had enough. I do believe they are being profiled by the police and my evidence are the comments I've heard from my black friends, all of whom are highly educated, responsible and successful people. They are not militant. They are matter of fact about being profiled. They don't want to cause trouble but it is a fact in their world. So why can't all blacks be like that? Well, why can't human beings all be like that? It's a vast ocean of feeling marginalized and to me that explains their feelings. It doesn't mean that I feel guilty about being white. I don't. Not at all. I'm half-Cuban but look all white so I've never been discriminated against for the color of my skin. I also know that my ancestors had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow laws. But as a nation I do support some sort of recognition of the past and the psychological damage that exists today.

    So what is the answer? I don't know that one truly exits. This country is an experiment in diversity that possibly has never happened before. We are glorifying all cultures and they are wishing to assert themselves as equals. There will always be friction.

    The other day I read some article about how people in Finland were mocking Trump for something he said about them and the Liberal bloggers on Yahoo were squealing with glee. So I looked up the racial make-up of Finland and it appears to be 99% white with only 3.5% being immigrants. And yet this society and their reaction to Trump is being used by the Left as another arrow into his political hide. But why? Why side with a society that they actually hate? An all-white society that appears to regulate immigration vigorously. They need to make up their minds. They want to pretend Finland's way is doable over here and I say it's not. It's not because we have too many cultures but that's America folks. It's not that white's are smarter; it's that the FINISH CULTURE has them all pretty much on the same page. We're not because of our history. The baggage is real. And racism is going to be a problem going forward even if some folks think it shouldn't be a problem. It just is and that is why I mentioned it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  27. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    This is a fallacy. The EPA was set up because the culture had changed, not just the electorate but in the business community as well. Ruthless businessman are being held in check by the culture, which is why the environment isn’t getting worse under Trump despite the massive deregulation going on. In the industry I serve, the wastewater being emitted is cleaner than the river it is being released into. The same for air when the comparison is dirty air from Mexico or auto tailpipes.
     
  28. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    Do you believe in the absence of Save Our Springs that FM Properties and Beau Armstrong would have voluntarily restricted themselves to the current limits on impervious cover? I just think whatever the culture now regulates via the EPA, is 100% because of the Left.
     
  29. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    The wacky environmentalist wants to go back to eating berries and living in caves. I would argue a businessperson does a better job weighing the pros and cons of development better than the wackos. By the way, what did SOS do that was successful? Southwest austin is one big development nowadays.
     
  30. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    Impervious cover restrictions. It would be even worse. That was my point.

    Once upon a time, SW Parkway was built. It was quickly dubbed a developer freeway. It allowed builders out past Bee Caves to market the reduced commute times to town. Now it's being back-filled. Traffic lights and more to come. They built something at SW Parkway and William Cannon and it's just sitting there. The developers would pave over all of it. I believe that all the way.

    The wackiness is their biggest problem. They need to find someone who isn't easily ridiculed to make the arguments about the water table, the quality of life and the pollution in general.

    Beau's company is a public corporation. Their motive is to keep developing as they need YOY (quarterly) financial growth results. They have to answer to the shareholders. They will continue to destroy this once fine city. I have no respect for what they are doing.

    Thank God for environmentalists. That's my feeling. It would be so much worse.
     

Share This Page