Dumb Political Correctness

Developing in the hilly terrain requires someone to care about flooding. Mitigating floods downstream doesn't necessarily add value to your development. It increases costs. A lower percentage of impervious cover also reduces the number of units unless you want to build more stories. I'm not sure if there are rules prohibiting the number of stories but it seems most apartments want to go no higher than three stories.

 

I'm not arguing that they're the same. Clearly FGM is worse. However, the point is that they both involve removing tissue from another human being without medical necessity, exposing him or her to risk and complications, and sometimes doing it without that person's consent. Like I said, FGM is worse, but many of the same issues are present with both.

 

We've had this discussion before. I have a hard time with the government stepping in and saying, "this adult says Yes but means No and would say No if he or she knew what we know." That's a dangerous place to be.

 

I don't think govt intervention is the entire answer.
And additionally I doubt anything can be done. Social pressure in these groups is too great for most to go against. My point is it is not voluntary as we understand voluntary.

Anymore tbat all Muslim women who say they support sharia law are supporting it "voluntarily".

 

The link I posted was "supporting evidence." The fact that I chose not to go back and reiterate it for someone who has no interest in actually reading it for himself is not me refusing to provide evidence. I made a statement about the NYT and its bias based on a ridiculous interactive blog that states that if you are a conservative arguing with a liberal relative, your recommended response is to ask questions and then agree with the liberal. If you are a liberal arguing with a conservative, your recommended response is to ask questions, whereupon you will learn that the conservative is spouting talking points and actually isn't doing well at all under Trump, at which point you get to win the argument.

So have I somehow now "proved" anything? Did that satisfy you somehow? Do I need to copy and paste screenshots of the actual text? This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen on the West Mall.

This has nothing to do with an echo chamber other than the fact that I pointed out a ridiculous example of the NYT's bias. If you want to do the same with Fox, then fine, go for it. But I'm really not sure what your issue is with this post, and it's baffling that you won't even look at the article to evaluate it for yourself or provide a counter argument.

Whack that strawman. For someone who tries to act as if they are above the fray, you're pretty good about wading on in. I'm not asking you to trust that I'm right. I'm saying that the this article is an example of bias. If you disagree, then show me where I'm wrong. But your response is truly remarkable: you haven't read it. You clearly aren't GOING to read it. You have no argument against what I said. You're apparently just upset that I posted it and seem to be under the impression that I'm expecting people to trust my viewpoint on it. If that were the case, I wouldn't have provided a link. Which you apparently refuse to read.

If you think that posting a link about a story that irritates me because it shows the media's inherent bias makes me a snowflake, then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

I wonder what qualifies as a snowflake in Husker's eyes. Would his constant complaining about Trump qualify as acting like a snowflake?

 

It's his go-to response, as it has become with many lefties.

They didn't like being called "snowflakes" because the characterization hit too close to home. So they turned it around and started using it in the most idiotic ways, essentially attempting to redefine the meaning of the term (something they do an awful lot of). Upon successfully muddying the waters with competing definitions of the terminology, they then pat themselves on the back for a job well done, and go about with their typical sneering condescension towards any non-liberal they encounter.

 

Playground 101:
Kid A) You throw like a girl.
Kid B) Oh yeah??? Well... YOU throw like a girl!
Kid A) What?
Kid B) What???
Kid A) Yeah whatever...
Kid B) Yeah... Showed THAT guy! HIGH FIVE!!

 

Poor James. You would think the dad would have some recourse if the boy preferred to actually be a boy. It sounds like there is objective evidence that this is all coming from a SJW mom.

 

But the culture changed because a small group of people started debating that is should. And it didn't start in the conference rooms of business.

There is no doubt that there are business leaders that consider the impact of what they do, but there are also many that don't give a dang. And by its very nature, compliance and thoughtful environmental planning cost more, so even if the thoughtful group wanted to do it, the vultures would get the nod because there is a little more money to be made by a group that isn't oriented towards the environment.

 

Also, judges matter

 

Recently Pardoned Turkey Found Dead After Claiming To Have Dirt On Hillary Clinton

 

The parking lot skate-board champion and sugar britches socialist are now aggressively coming out in support of the Hondurans. Big surprise. They are both anarchists. And they are the face of the Left; rocks stars... it sickens me.

 

Again, you make the assertion that business folks are a separate breed from everyone else. There is no justification for that assertion.

 

The extra cost is passed onto consumers if fairly applied. Additional restrictions also raises the barrier to entry, which is a boon to entrenched manufacturers.

 

Going against your narrative, if not for a small group of nuts that effectively shutdown the planned construction of dozens of nuclear power plants in the 70’s and 80’s, there would have been significant less greenhouse gases and lower cost power (I recall reading that >50% of our power would have been nuclear instead of 20% today).

 

On the Southwest Parkway/William Cannon corridor there is no evidence that developers care about the environment. They are shoving their new projects into every available space, adding impervious cover, mowing down acres and acres of trees and it will continue. They are ruining the quality of life in the area by their ability to force new street lights onto SW Parkway to accommodate the new sub-divisions, apartments and commercial developments because those people have the "right to a light." It doesn't matter that it's their personal problem if they choose to buy a home or move into an apartment that is difficult to access or depart due to no light. Nope. It's not their problem at all. They are going to live there and they are going to be catered to. I think it's unfortunate that anyone believes the developers care about anything other than profit for themselves only. They may have some green space that they will cynically market but the fact is they are taking the green space away.

 

My position is that the developers are not out of synch with the general populace. If that was not the case, you wouldn’t see this type of development.

 

This could get into a lot of detail but do you believe a community has a collective right at some point to control development and even prevent it from happening? Or do personal property rights come with the inevitability of total degradation of a community's natural beauty, resources and quality of life?

 

by
What if it was the development of big box retailer or something similar that would provide employment for hundreds?
Or a low income housing complex?

 

It's all theory but I think off the top of my head an employer who would provide jobs for EXISTING residents is a positive for the community. Low income housing always sounds good in theory but how do you keep the price low? Force the land owner to take less (this is the big problem; the rights of a property owner to sell the property for it's highest and best use; i.e. whatever reaps the most dollars)? Build it in an undesirable area where the land is cheap? Subsidize the costs by taxing the local community (have the city buy the land and build the homes with the rest of us subsidizing the delta between true market value and whatever the rent/sale price is to the lower income occupants?)

I understand all of this would be very difficult to manage.

 

FIFY.

 

By
You understand it.
There have been neighborhoods here in Dallas area who tried to reject low income housing complexes or big box retailers.
Of course the residents were called heartless and racist.
And of course where large numbers of low income apts etc were built the crime rate sky rocketed. If you attend any police community town halls they will admit , in pc tones, that yes they know crime rises with this type of housing.
It would be great if the law abiding low income families could find crime free places to live. But How to do that?
OTOH if someone else buys a home in a nice area to raise their families it is understandable they do not want to have crime and vandalism move in. Home values plummet.
Similar things happen with Big box retailers etc.

I know new apartment complexes must provide a certain percentage of the units to subsidized housing.
No easy answers. Each point of view has some merit.

 

I've seen quite a bit of the turning around of "insults" used by the right. They like to use "cut and run" now against Republicans. In the case of snowflakes (meaning being emotionally triggered by something), they are saying if the right is triggered by an alleged snowflake reaction then you too are a snowflake. So in other words, you are supposed to remain neutral and say nothing, while watching the mental toughness of our society degrade to levels of paralysis.

There is no way to define or draw the line on mental toughness. But we are seeing how Twitter has become a political tool as the Liberal tweets have been morphed into a voice that must be heard. And these tweets are constantly attacking anyone who is "insensitive" (again, how is this defined?). It's like the old definition of pornography: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

So in the end, if you object to something in any manner other than Spock-like manner then you too are a snowflake. It's another form of political correctness which is being used to eliminate dissent.

I talk to my children all the time about being tough-minded. That doesn't mean they should accept anything and everything they hear; it doesn't mean they should become numb to true insults and acts of racism and the like. But they don't need to become sanctimonious and on a mission to regulate every utterance by human beings who GASP have a bad day every now and then.

Edit: And to give an example of knowing it when I see it, here it is:

 

Yep. We're through the looking glass of stupid now:

Lord of the Rings is 'RACIST': Author slams books for discriminating against orcs

"American writer Andy Duncan blasted Britain’s JRR Tolkien for his depiction of the make believe creatures.

He said they are presented as “worse than others” and this had “dire consequences for society”.

Speaking to Geek's Guide to the Galaxy, run by Wired Magazine, Mr Duncan said: “It's hard to miss the repeated notion in Tolkien that some races are just worse than others, or that some peoples are just worse than others.

The American author has also written a parody of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth called Senator Bilbo about a right-wing Hobbit who opposes immigration of orcs into the Shire.

Speaking about it on the podcast, he added: “I can easily imagine that a lot of these people that were doing the dark lord's bidding were doing so out of simple self preservation and so forth.

“A lot of these creatures that were raised out of the earth had not a great deal of choice in the matter of what to do.

“I have this very complicated sense of the politics of all that.”

Because as we all know, having a complicated sense of things is much more important than an ACTUAL sense of things.

 

There's just nothing we can do with people like this. He is attacking artistic freedom and advocating a very narrow band of fantasy. I suppose he's trying to say there aren't bad cultures (except privileged white people of which he obviously has opted out of); only bad people.

 

Any kind of regulation overall favors the larger more powerful corporations. Actually environmental regulations are usually big business working with their friends in the government to come up with a deal that the business can 1) use to buffer themselves from lawsuits and 2) keep away newer and smaller competitors. Plus, if you look at many of the largest pollution events governments are guilty. Not true of course for oil spills but it is still true.


I think a system of strong private property rights and individual law suits could do a much better job of keeping pollution at bay.

 

I believe that is called zoning.