|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created.
in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views.
|
On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views.
No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream.
EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new.
|
is it me or you people are describing the exact scenario(marginalization due to outside pressure, by <bullies>) then play a game of "tag I'm it!".
|
If democrats make Dean DNC chair instead of Ellison, they just might lose my vote.
|
Tbh the entire idea of "political correctness" as a criticism needs to be dropped. The things that you are right to criticize for being PC are things that are logically wrong, so you don't need the term PC to criticize them, you just need logic.
If there is something you can't criticize under "logically incorrect", but you can criticize under "politically correct", then it probably doesn't deserve your criticism.
|
On November 12 2016 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views. No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream. EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new.
how many workplaces were you part of in 1990 ? so sitting alone at your computer working solo increases dialogue? the biggest mistake i see my IT consultant colleagues make is not spending enough time with their customers. then they whine how unfair the world is when they lose their customers. they don't even know their own customers.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 12 2016 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Tbh the entire idea of "political correctness" as a criticism needs to be dropped. The things that you are right to criticize for being PC are things that are logically wrong, so you don't need the term PC to criticize them, you just need logic.
If there is something you can't criticize under "logically incorrect", but you can criticize under "politically correct", then it probably doesn't deserve your criticism.
Political correctness isn't about the the substance of an issue or logical form of its rationale.
On November 12 2016 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: I'd even suggest that the "narcissism culture" is more accurately reflected by those who see SJW's as some significant burden on their existence
If there is such a thing as a "narcissism culture" (which would be almost impossible to perceive since personality disorders, by definition, are categorized as deviations from the standard), both sides are equally guilty of participating in it.
|
On November 12 2016 01:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views. No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream. EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new. how many workplaces were you part of in 1990 ?
90? not many unless you count hanging out with my dad at work. I also didn't work in 50's, but I don't need to, to know it was a racist and sexist environment for many people.
But what's your point?
EDIT: If your point was that sitting in front of a computer doesn't build dialogue, that's a matter of who and where you chooses to engage. But you can also sit in front of a computer and not interact with anyone. I was pointing out that merely working with people with different political opinions didn't/doesn't mean you're forced to have reasonable dialogue.
|
On November 12 2016 01:36 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Tbh the entire idea of "political correctness" as a criticism needs to be dropped. The things that you are right to criticize for being PC are things that are logically wrong, so you don't need the term PC to criticize them, you just need logic.
If there is something you can't criticize under "logically incorrect", but you can criticize under "politically correct", then it probably doesn't deserve your criticism. Political correctness isn't about the the substance of an issue or logical form of its rationale.
Can you bring up a single case where political correctness was a problem that you couldn't have solved with logic?
|
On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views.
In the pre internet age this existed as well. In The Netherlands for example we had a thing called 'de verzuiling' where every group of people would have their own party, news papers, tv etc. It seems we're partly going back to such a thing. I don't think it's because of the internet.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 12 2016 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:36 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 12 2016 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Tbh the entire idea of "political correctness" as a criticism needs to be dropped. The things that you are right to criticize for being PC are things that are logically wrong, so you don't need the term PC to criticize them, you just need logic.
If there is something you can't criticize under "logically incorrect", but you can criticize under "politically correct", then it probably doesn't deserve your criticism. Political correctness isn't about the the substance of an issue or logical form of its rationale. Can you bring up a single case where political correctness was a problem that you couldn't have solved with logic?
Benedict Cumberbatch using the word 'colored' instead of 'black' when describing actors.
|
On November 12 2016 01:46 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2016 01:36 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 12 2016 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Tbh the entire idea of "political correctness" as a criticism needs to be dropped. The things that you are right to criticize for being PC are things that are logically wrong, so you don't need the term PC to criticize them, you just need logic.
If there is something you can't criticize under "logically incorrect", but you can criticize under "politically correct", then it probably doesn't deserve your criticism. Political correctness isn't about the the substance of an issue or logical form of its rationale. Can you bring up a single case where political correctness was a problem that you couldn't have solved with logic? Benedict Cumberbatch using the word 'colored' instead of 'black' when describing actors.
Which is supposed to be worse? Colored or black? I'm assuming colored, right?
|
Black and white are not colors.
And he is right because noone is 000000 or FFFFFF, so everyone is colored.
|
All in all, I think this was probably the best result possible for actual left leaning people out of the election. Maybe it would have been better if Trump won while the GOP lost the Senate/house, but that's unrealistic.
Trump is forcing a realignment of the Republican party. He is dragging it far to the left on many issues, which is something I noticed way back in January.
If Clinton had won the 2018/2020 elections would almost certainly have been brutal. And it would have entrenched the neoliberals into positions of power in the DNC. Even now they're basically trying to say they did nothing wrong.
The big issue with Trump is climate change from my perspective, but those really should have been tackled by congress. Liberals do themselves no favors by trying to persuade people on the issue by claiming ignorance is the only reason for opposition. People don't like changing. Calling them ignorant doesn't make them think they need to get informed, it makes them think being ignorant is a good thing.
I'm far enough left that I generally just think "pox on both your houses" about both Democrats and Republicans.
We had some truly awful president's during the gilded age. We survived that. The difference between now and then is the the power of the executive branch has greatly expanded due to both democratic and Republican presidents in recent times. It is somewhat amusing to see some liberal columns calling on Obama to end the mass surveillance state before Trump takes power purely for that reason. It wasn't fine for Obama to do it regardless of who his successor was going to be
|
On November 12 2016 01:50 Antyee wrote:
Black and white are not colors.
And he is right because noone is 000000 or FFFFFF, so everyone is colored.
True, but specifying someone as Asian instead of Korean diminishes the unique identities of various countries. Black people have a very unique identity in American culture, so lumping them together with all the other groups that also suffer from the same systematic difficulties doesn't make sense from a cultural perspective. It is grouping people based on struggle, not based on identity. Being defined by your struggle is kind of fucked up.
|
On November 12 2016 01:50 Antyee wrote:
Black and white are not colors.
And he is right because noone is 000000 or FFFFFF, so everyone is colored.
And if everyone is colored there's no reason to use it as a way to distinguish one actor from another.
|
On November 11 2016 22:21 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 21:58 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 21:53 Kickboxer wrote:
1). I know he's acted wtf? It's not a secret.
2). His astute analysis of the disastrous failure of the progressive left all over the globe is making fun of me? That is an odd way to interpret satire. Yes, it seems you fell for Poe's Law. What you call an astute analysis is him talking the kind of gibberish Alex Jones and Molyneux do because that's the object of his satire Ok keep pretending this is true while things keep rolling along these exact same tracks. From where I stand, he's making fun of you. The piece and everything in it is not only factually true (these things are happening), it also resonates 100% with myself, many people I know and, apparently, over 50% of the interested electorate in some of the world's most powerful countries. People just don't talk about it in public because that's literally not safe to do in the current climate. Had I posted this on my Facebook wall, I might have lost clients in real life. It's just not worth the hassle to express my opinion unless it comes perfectly aligned with "ultra-progressive" dogma, some of which I simply, profoundly disagree with. Do you think that is a healthy vibrant climate of progressive discussion? You guys might think everyone else is stupid, but unfortunately for you democracy is the order of the day and there are masses of people who simply don't share your worldview.
This is one example of the neutered irony that passes for "satire" nowadays. I suppose Colbert resonated with you as well.
|
On November 12 2016 01:46 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2016 01:36 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 12 2016 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Tbh the entire idea of "political correctness" as a criticism needs to be dropped. The things that you are right to criticize for being PC are things that are logically wrong, so you don't need the term PC to criticize them, you just need logic.
If there is something you can't criticize under "logically incorrect", but you can criticize under "politically correct", then it probably doesn't deserve your criticism. Political correctness isn't about the the substance of an issue or logical form of its rationale. Can you bring up a single case where political correctness was a problem that you couldn't have solved with logic? Benedict Cumberbatch using the word 'colored' instead of 'black' when describing actors.
iirc, it was about the word "colored" not having the same meaning in the UK and in the US, right?
If so, the people who thought Cumberbatch was a huge racist were logically wrong, because they didn't understand that Cumberbatch didn't mean what they thought he meant through the usage of the word. And Cumberbatch was then made aware that the word doesn't mean the same thing in the US, he apologized, and I'm sure he'll be aware of that the next time he's in that context.
Don't see the issue here.
|
On November 12 2016 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views. No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream. EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new. how many workplaces were you part of in 1990 ? 90? not many unless you count hanging out with my dad at work. I also didn't work in 50's, but I don't need to, to know it was a racist and sexist environment for many people. But what's your point? EDIT: If your point was that sitting in front of a computer doesn't build dialogue, that's a matter of who and where you chooses to engage. But you can also sit in front of a computer and not interact with anyone. I was pointing out that merely working with people with different political opinions didn't/doesn't mean you're forced to have reasonable dialogue.
Its an interesting theory but it is a bit far sought I think,people are working now just like they where in the 90,s. They still talk with their co-workers.
Internet is so overrated,wikileaks did have influence but reddit and 4chan those sites I don't think hold much influence. The people visiting those sites are often still in college,not even allowed to vote,unemployed,whatever. Someone with a job wont spend 4 hours a day on reddit,not even 10 minutes most likely. They just talk with their co workers "economy is shit" "ya its pretty shitty for me as well"
The ideological democrats,thoose who spread the gospel,they are not that common in workplaces I think. I for one would be very surprised when a co workers starts a discussion with me about how great a certain political party is. Its just not done to talk politics in workplaces and such because there are so many opposing vieuws.
The democrats did make use of the subversive parts of internet just as much as the republicans,more actually. Just look at this thread alone and all the people defending Clinton lol.
I think it is wrong to blame certain aspects of this election on sketchy internet websites where people convince eachoter of how bad Hillary is. It did happen the other way around just as much if not more.
Thinking about it,the places where you could read that trump was not that bad where far less then the places where you could read how awesome Hillary was,i can give countless examples starting with this forum/
|
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/FhDQfK.png)
The lies continue
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
