Dumb Political Correctness

Yes, but zoning restrictions change all the time. It helps if the developers stack the city councils with their people.

 

You can't provide affordable housing when restricting housing development, adding code upon code, increasing environmental regulations continually, increasing tax rates to ever expanding municipal bonds, etc.

Writing a law requiring affordable housing just means that the middle class can't afford the property as a result. So you slowly but surely squeeze the middle out of your city leading to a bifurcated population. The very rich heavily subsidizing housing for the very poor. But then, when you look at how this plays out in real life, the rich don't want to live by the poor so that housing is placed not where the poor would naturally live based on where they work but to areas distant from everything else.

When politicians claim to do things to provide for affordable housing. Remember it is deception. They are even deceived themselves. They have no clue about the issue.

 

Exactly - it costs too much to build affordable housing and red tape is a huge part of this. Government trying to make housing more affordable without addressing this stuff is just basically wielding one sword in each hand and having them fight to a standstill against each other.

Exactly again. Most of the "stop the big bad corporations" regulations are written by the lawyers of lobbyists of those corporations, who can handle the costs of the regulations in ways that their smaller competitors cannot. It's like the ads for "the secret to paying down your debt that the credit card companies DON'T want you know about" - which are done by groups that work directly with the credit card companies to get more of the money back from people who aren't otherwise likely to pay.

 

It's a tactic of holding up a mirror to those mocking "emotionally triggered" individuals by demonstating that they themselves are emotionally triggered by extreme elements. It's hypocrisy. Own it.

Don't want to be called a snowflake? Demonstrate thicker skin by not playing into the more extremist elements of society. Rather, if you choose to allow media and websites trigger your emotions (and you want to share your trigger with others) then accept that you are no different than what you purport to dislike.

 

I think the issue here is your feeling that the extreme elements of the Left are trivial and do not have enough power to do anything except to annoy. Many on the right feel those extreme elements are far more powerful and see it being pushed down to our children and college age kids. That is the nuance of all of this. I personally feel the Left has enabled being offended to such a degree that it is almost a badge of honor. And if I'm correct then I feel they need to be forcefully challenged as to their affect on our society at large. Disagreeing is not being a snowflake; being offended and emotionally charged enough to attack people, demand they be fired, believe in women/survivors etc is all part of mental make-up of the mind in those who are triggered. To say that others must sit passively and not be affected by this aggression is not the standard to me of proof that a reaction to the "snowflakes" is in fact a "snowflake" reaction.

It's my impression that the college age Liberal activists are pushing for "safe places" and wishing to self-segregate in order to avoid alternate points of view. I believe they are successful on some level but even worse, they are normalizing their remedy to their emotional needs.

 

It is difficult for me to define what we should shrug off or what should rightfully summon a level of outrage. I don't know that I can do it. But in general, my advice to my children is to remain calm. The most successful people I know are always in a thoughtful, calm state of being. Just last night I saw a documentary about Apollo 13 and it was incredible how level-headed and calm everyone was; even the guy who told them they had fifteen minutes of oxygen left. They just were in total command of their emotions and worked the problem as Ed Harris said in the movie itself.

My view of "snowflakes" are people who are the exact opposite of what I witnessed in the documentary and what I preach to my own children about their reaction to the world and the things that happen to them, fair or unfair.

 

Not sure there's anything you can do at this point, both sides are flinging the word around with abandon. It's become the most annoying buzzword of the year. Guess that means I'm a snowflake for finding it annoying!

 

Pretty convenient of you to redefine the term to suit your purpose. When progressives first started using the term "triggered," it wasn't about getting outraged or responding back. It was about being so emotionally injured that you felt threatened and needed a "safe space" so that you could remove yourself from the message.

I get that it's useful for you to turn that around on people with whom you disagree. Makes life a lot easier if they just shut up and take whatever is going on in the culture. That seems to be what you're going for here. But there's a difference between pointing out or contradicting a statement or action that you don't like and what a "snowflake" would do, which is demand that the source of the irritation be silenced and/or re-educated to fit what they consider to be the "correct" viewpoint.

You know all this perfectly well. But you're still going to throw it at people and hope it sticks, because you apparently have no argument. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you launched into me over a post that you refused to read or acknowledge. It's called intellectual dishonesty. Own it.

 

The annoying thing about the overuse of this buzzword is that the dilution of meaning is obscuring that it's a real thing. Someone who has been through serious abuse or trauma being "triggered" means that some other comment or event set off a very painful and vivid memory of the details of the past event coming back to them. So people using it to mean "someone pushed my pet peeve button" seems rather insulting.

 

Here's a fun couple:

 

In a world where media makes their money on clicks, I'd argue that the "extreme elements of the Left" (and right for that matter) are over-represented in order to add to the bottom line. Your (and my) linking, discussing and debating of these extreme elements gives them the platform that you are so fearful of. It's outsized influence.

Fight offended with being offended? The old cliche "2 wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

You, bystander, disagree. Would you say JoeFan and his cheer section simply "disagree"? Be careful not to fall into the trap others have fallen into and take me holding up a virtual mirror JoeFan personal as if it's directed at you. You could apply that statement and simply change "women/survivors" to "white male" and it is applicable to at least a half dozen participants on the West Mall.

How are "college age Liberal activists" today different than those in the 60's, 70's and beyond? In fact, based on my experience with 1 son at college and another there next year, I'd argue that generation is more apathetic to the political system, side from the Bernie fringe. They believe that the system is rigged and that outcomes are predetermined or they have no influence. Now, they vehemently dislike Trump the same they would of anyone that acts like a bully. Do you think these same student in the 60's embraced bullies? If so, you have a different impression of the "hippies" than I do.

 

Uh..."emotionally triggered" was a direct quote from a bystander post. I was using his definition. It helps to further our mutual understanding. I'd highly recommend trying it sometime.

 

Yeah except he used it correctly. You, on the other hand....

"Triggering your emotions" is not what is being discussed. By that standard, you are also being "emotionally triggered" and should be considered a "snowflake" just like each and every other person on this board. No one is calling anyone a snowflake because they are expressing disapproval or disagreement. Except you.

 

Cheer section? Jeezuseffingchrist...

'activists' of decades gone by did not seek to destroy lives of those that they disagreed with. They did not seek to silence groups that had a differing viewpoint. The efforts to destroy lives is very real...on more than one occasion, I have had the pigs in wigs seek to contact my managing partner in an attempt to have me fired because I dare to believe that males are male, no matter how much surgery or makeup they happen to wear and that I don't believe in the notions of the 'girl penis.'

Similarly, I have had snowflakes on the left try to contact my managing partner over pro-Trump comments I have made in various forums.

Those sorts of things were not a daily occurrence in the generations of the past...

 

mb
Cleary you do not understand how freedom of speech and expression really works today.
If you are not towing the leftist/progressive line you must be silenced.

 

Sometimes it helps to read online comments just so you can say, "Thank God I'm not this guy"

 

That's what I do with my time. Lol.

 

In my opinion, the easiest solution is to get back to the basics: the golden rule. Don't worry about whether or not it's a hate crime or insult. Set the bar at the level of the crime or insult with equality for all. A crime is a crime. Dead is dead whether by pre-meditated murder, collaterally during a burglary or drive-by or because of race, gender etc. The penalty should cover all of that. Same with insults in schools towards others. Police the lack of kindness in general instead of teaching about who has a special need due to race, gender etc.

Teach people to be nice to ERRRRBODY.

 

More evidence supporting my theory that white hetero men became Democrats so they might freely sexually harass the females. I have a similar theory on why certain men became Catholic Priests

California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman has resigned after multiple claims of sexual misconduct have surfaced​

California Democratic Party leader Eric Bauman to resign following accusations of sexual misconduct

 

Not sure if I would say "nice" or "respectful", but the general sentiment is spot on.

 

Not sure I agree with going that far.

 

Article about how even science is politicized

" .... Something has gone horribly wrong. A world in which facts can be easily verified should not become so polarized, right?

Well, maybe not, according to a new paper in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science. The authors, Cailin O'Connor and James Owen Weatherall, argue that polarization is the natural outcome when groups of people disagree. In fact, they document a major example of polarization within the scientific community itself.

Lyme disease is due to a bacterial infection transmitted by ticks. Untreated, it can cause arthritis, pain, fatigue, and other problems. Some patients, who have these symptoms but no sign of an active infection, are convinced that they suffer from "chronic Lyme disease." Many doctors are convinced the condition is real, so they provide their patients with long-term antibiotic therapy.

No matter which side a scientist takes in the Lyme War, there is a common set of facts upon which we should all agree. (For what it's worth, ACSH is in the anti-chronic Lyme disease camp.) First, nobody wants these patients to suffer. Second, we want to find a cure, if there is one. And third, there is an ultimate truth yet to be discovered. Either "chronic Lyme" is real or it's not. (If it's not, there are several alternative explanations for the symptoms, such as an autoimmune disorder, perhaps triggered by Lyme disease.)

Given this dedication to public health and goodwill, it is difficult to see how the biomedical community could ever become polarized. And yet it has. The man who discovered Lyme disease, Allen Steere, was skeptical of the chronic Lyme diagnosis as well as long-term antibiotic therapy. So, he started receiving death threats from patients who were convinced he was wrong....."​

The Polarization of Society: Even Scientists Become Tribal | American Council on Science and Health

 

I don't always word it how I'm thinking. In general, I'm just trying to minimize judgment calls and focus on the fact of a murder (for instance) or in the gender arena, I just think we should focus on treating everyone kindly (equally) and not try to drill down and teach that gender confusion is normal for everyone.

 

According to the article he's gay, not hetero. But he's sexually harrassing women... it's all too confusing to me. Give them credit for not playing favorites or protecting certain party members or demographics.

 

Having an understanding of the progressive mindset, let me see if I can explain. *Ahem*

Despite being a gay man, he is still biologically a man, which not only puts him in a position of power, but also makes him genetically predisposed to be a predator. In addition, someone who knows him cannot make the assumption that his maleness will not assert itself in some physical act of violence or violation despite his stated claims to gayness. Therefore, his comments should always be taken as threatening.

Having said that...

Were he to declare himself to be a woman, he would no longer be a biological man, because sexual identity is only linked to biology IF the person continues to identify with the sexual orientation that was assigned to him based on the arbitrary association of sexual organ to biological sex - which is actually determined on gender, which is a social construct open to interpretation and infinite possible variations. At that point, his biological makeup no longer controls him and makes him a potential predator, since his declared gender has disassociated him from his sexual organs. He is also no longer in a position of power, and is rather being suppressed and discriminated upon by his physical body and sexual organs, which are attempting to impose maleness against his will, even though maleness is determined by gender, which is a social construct dependent on individual interpretation and not biological facts, which are actually NOT biological facts because sexual identity is not based on biological fact and is independent from the possession of sexual organs which are only associated with sexual identity due to social constructs which up until two years ago would have said that a man with male sex organs was a biological male, but now indicate that this person is not a biological male.

Did you not read the handbook?

 

Sounds like social rocket science! I'd say you did a pretty good job of trying to psycho-analyze this guy... Wow...

 

Maybe they mean he is really festive and happy?
He sort of looks like a plus sized ball of fun

 

This one is neither white nor hetero, but he is a Dem
I made need to adjust my theory

 

That's racist. Black men are always assumed to be hyper-sexual by white supremacists.