If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I'll tell you how on earth ... Many of us dont believe in any of the 'everybody's oppressed' stuff to begin with. Of course it happens, but it's such a fringe thing we dont believe in turning everything upside down to fix it. There are far more important problems we need to put our resources into. Liberals have kinda shot themselves in the foot here. When people everywhere are being accused of racism or sexism every time they dont hire someone... even every time they dont smile at someone in the hallway... and people know they werent being kjdfdsfnwhatevercist, then it loses all merit. It makes you think that maybe all the accusations are fake. All stats stating such things are done by professor types who clearly have a political agenda. Not to mention no stats can read people's minds.
Unfortunately, people often seem to need rules to know how to be nice to each other, which is sad.
Of course people manipulate our sensibilities and emotions to be overly politically correct, but just because this happens doesn't mean that we should just trample over other human beings and not attempt to be decent human beings.
Whether you or not you want to use words like "fringe", human beings are no question cruel to each other. Racism exists, sexism exists, homophobia exists, triggering exists, micro-aggressions exist, and the solution to none of these clearly apparent problems is being less empathetic.
I do get your point about people being overly manipulative with the PC card (I could use the word "fringe" to label this, but this, like your label, is a matter of perception). However, just taking this to the extreme as you have done here is overcompensating, and it quite frankly makes you seem like a dick. I'm assuming you are also a white male?
@ subego, I can assure you on the internet Im far far more politically correct and diplomatic than IRL. You just cant get away with online what you can get away with IRL. While I dont use the word 'pussy' I have laughed at, and made fun of a woman before when she was crying after Obama won in 2008, other people (all black liberals for what it's worth) even joined me in the fun. She always voted R, but I never recognized her conservativeship due to her being one of those hypocritical republican types... and well the fact that she cried based on a presidential election. And yes she was being a stupid baby, it works the same on both sides. And after this election now she's one whos telling everyone to suck it up.
If these crybabies aren't being straight up losers, then they're using people's empathy as a means of manipulative control. It really is a powerful thing, just like crying your way out of speeding tickets. There's people who successfully do that for everything in life.
el chupacabra, would you tell OAW to his face that racism is just a fringe thing, or andi pandi that sexism is a fringe thing too if they both claimed to have experienced it personally?
@ subego, I can assure you on the internet Im far far more politically correct and diplomatic than IRL. You just cant get away with online what you can get away with IRL. While I dont use the word 'pussy' I have laughed at, and made fun of a woman before when she was crying after Obama won in 2008, other people (all black liberals for what it's worth) even joined me in the fun. She always voted R, but I never recognized her conservativeship due to her being one of those hypocritical republican types... and well the fact that she cried based on a presidential election. And yes she was being a stupid baby, it works the same on both sides. And after this election now she's one whos telling everyone to suck it up.
If these crybabies aren't being straight up losers, then they're using people's empathy as a means of manipulative control. It really is a powerful thing, just like crying your way out of speeding tickets. There's people who successfully do that for everything in life.
Maybe a sensitive person cannot help being sensitive any more than you can't help being (I'm presuming) a white male?
Your wife's lunch might be your future children. Do you propose arresting her every time she drops a deuce instead of another kid?
Early term abortions are not immoral. Forcing women to carry, bear and raise kids they don't want is.
That the consequences of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term is a valid concern does not invalidate being morally repulsed by abortion (and vice-versa).
If the question of the impact on legality is taken off the table, do we not want society to be repulsed by it?
That the consequences of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term is a valid concern does not invalidate being morally repulsed by abortion (and vice-versa).
If the question of the impact on legality is taken off the table, do we not want society to be repulsed by it?
A certain length into the pregnancy maybe. But Trump & co and many many conservatives want all abortions outlawed from 1 day to 9 months. I don't know where the line should be precisely because I'm not a biologist or a doctor, but they should be allowed for some period of time after conception. I sense no hint being dropped here that any such compromise is on the cards.
As long as we insist on making such a big deal of very early term abortions it will have needlessly traumatic effects on the women who get them but maybe some degree of repulsion is ok. Its better to prevent than terminate a pregnancy. Of course there are sizeable sections of society who are against that as well...
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Doesn't it make sense as our nation surpasses 300 million to not have blanket rules trying to cover everybody; but let states decided and peeps can go to the state that most represents them?
Those blanket rules are things we like to call rights and as you go on to mention, its much easier to corrupt control a state government than the fed. This makes it much easier to impose a lifestyle on people who would prefer you didn't. It seems to me this happens far more often in conservative states than in liberal ones. I guess you could complain at California forcing people to use renewable energy and clean up after themselves but look at the mess thats made of their economy. And there are still plenty of productive gun-toting conservative farmers there too IIUC.
Should people be forced to move state, abandoning their homes, families, friends etc just to get fair rights? You think everyone who would need to move could afford to?
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
All stats stating such things are done by professor types who clearly have a political agenda.
The fun thing about this is that we can use stats to talk about how reliable stats might be. Stats should and often do speak for themselves and point to certain specific conclusions. If you don't like those conclusions you can look to see if there are stats that contradict them and then we can all discuss and analyse all the stats to try to explain which are right or wrong and draw some final conclusion. What you choose to do instead is assume that any stat pointing to a conclusion you don't like must be a conspiratorial lie (because your opinions and impressions are completely infallible). I confess, I am often tempted to do the same. Now there is a small chance that we are both correct and both our statistically supported conclusions are somehow right. There is a larger chance that we are both wrong, and that neither of our championed stats or conclusions are telling the whole story. That will likely forever be the case.
Where its interesting is if one of us is right, and the other is wrong and whether the chances are equal as to which of us is which. When my stats come from professors at Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford or Berkely and yours come from billy-joe-bobs-leftiewatch.org, I know where my money is going.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
You shouldn't be picking politicians based on policies that only affect fringe 'groups' anyway. It's a democracy. Politicians should be picked based on policies that affect everybody, or at the very least, the majority.
Sounds like a great way to ensure things like racial and religious homogeniety. Or put another way, 'purity'.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Whoa whoa hold up there buckaroo! Nobody said anything about being rough 'n tough cowboys.
No you didn't say it, but I'm sick of being on the side who is inexplicably banned from making thinly veiled insinuations and sweeping blanket generalisations and is instead almost always held to to a legal standard of debate here. This is an internet forum, not a court of law and you very strongly implied that all conservatives are tough and emotionally resilient, and all liberals are girly cry-babies. We both know better.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Remember when grown adults who didnt throw a hissy fit over everything little thing were considered normal? Why cant people just be adults, take responsibility for their situation in life, not cry just because someone makes fun of them, or because someone they never met made fun of someone else they never met who happens to be the same gender as them, or because someone elses version of kardashian won the popularity contest over their version of kardashian? Not crying over a politician doesnt make someone a tough cowgirl.
Conservatives have been crying for the past 8 years because the president was black and they are always crying the second anyone threatens to to make the tiniest dent in their privilege. War on Christmas? Christian oppression? All lives matter? Cry, cry, cry.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
It's not about "looking good". It's about reality, and being honest with ourselves. We live in a reality where exploitation exists, and has to exists.
Its rather depressing that you feel that way. Perhaps you'd like to explain why exploitation must exist and some kind of fair exchange system can never take its place?
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
It's nature. It can't be changed.
We change it all the time. I'm pretty sure you mention airports in a minute. You know what those are for right?
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
How do we know it can't be changed? Because liberals do it even more than conservatives. So sure liberals think they look good since they go around saying they dont believe in exploitation (when referring to themselves mostly) all the while taking every opportunity they can to exploit. The only thing thats changed between slave times and now is now most our slavery is in another country, something we could easily fix... if we wanted to. So far nobody has every proven by example that we can make exploitation a thing of the past. Hell it's not even anywhere near the top of our political debates/priorities.
Lots to address here.
We know that nature can be changed;
You make several claims about liberals being more exploitative but give no examples which I find telling;
You think that because something hasn't happened yet its impossible? No wonder you conservatives don't like progress. You don't even get it;
Its not near the top of your priorities clearly;
Maybe we would have had some more success eliminating exploitation if there were fewer conservatives fighting to maintain their ability to do it all the time?
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
"Oh look 102 unarmed people of the same race were killed by cops in a sea of 300 million this year" Whats the problem? "the only problem is they should have killed 1000 unarmed white people to make the numbers even... Then there'd be no problem 'cause it wouldnt be prejudice". An example of the argument for modern oppression...
This is just a lack of understanding. If there were 1000 unarmed white people killed by cops it would indicate that there wasn't a race problem at work. There would still be a problem of cops oppressing citizens, quite clearly. Or just being generally incompetent perhaps. Still a big problem, but not a racially slanted one.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
It's quickly becoming a thing in the US. When I go to the airport it looks like 1 out of every 30 has an emotional support dog, or bird, or rabbit, or turtle (seriously). It used to be a health code violation to have animals in food establishments. Now we're seeing them everywhere. A step backwards in society all in the name of protecting people's emotions.
I can't really argue with what you're seeing over there because I'm not there to see any different, but 1 in 30 sounds like it has the potential to be a huge exaggeration. Did you ever wonder if any of those people were conservative veterans suffering from PTSD?
I'm not going to claim there aren't a few overindulged individuals exploiting a system that actually would do better to kick them up the ass, but that has as much to with lawsuit culture as political correctness and surely thats a non-partisan problem at its root?
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
lol interesting way of putting it, it doesnt make me a tough guy, but it certainly makes them a wuss & so much more
Everyone has a breaking point. Just because you never got close to yours doesn't give you any right to criticise people who did. I'm lucky enough to say I never got close to mine yet either but we all have one and we're kidding ourselves if we believe otherwise. You never know what someone else goes through and while some are clearly much more feeble than they should and could be, and some others are just lying to game the system, writing everyone off as weak isn't going to fix it for anyone.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
They do all over the net, but one doesnt need look any further than macnn. R's are Uneducated uneducated uneducated NASCAR-watching creationist shit-kickers who dont realize how much more money and happiness they'd have if only they'd move to the big city and acquire a government approved 4 year collectivist indoctrination certificate which may or may not get them an office job shuffling paper. "B-but just follow your dreams!" we tell them in the name of stroking thy ego.
I've always thought the liberals here were pretty heavily outnumbered. Maybe this is another example of conservatives not being as robust as you imply. Even when they are the majority, one or two opposing voices is enough to rattle them. I like to think its because deep down they know they're wrong.
I've never told anyone they'd be happier and richer pushing paper in the city. Theres a lot to be said for fresh air, peace and quiet and a tighter-knit community.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Yes many are hypocrites in this way. But you have to admit the dems are worse when it comes to hypocrisy & they seem to eat up everything their party projects, where as republican constituents are always hammering away at their party at least trying to keep them in line. This is what dems call "the republicans imploding".
Yeah, there is no way in hell I'll admit that I'm afraid. Look at the way the Republicans who called Trump all sorts of unpleasant names eventually backed down, bent over and drank the cooled while they were spreading their cheeks. Pretty much every single one of them.
Then there is the fact that Trump was actually guilty of most of the things Republicans have been falsely accusing Hillary (and Bill) of for years. Dodgy middle eastern friends, business corruption, sexual predator, mismanaging a charity etc. More hypocrisy in the outrage at her email being a security issue while he won't disclose his conflicts of interest even now, had treasonous dealings with Iran and Cuba while under embargo. Most conservatives aren't that fond of the Russians after a lifetime of anti-communism and look at him suck up to Putin.
This only covers the last 12 months of conservative hypocrisy. Its on an epic scale. Liberals will never come close to catching up.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
This is likely rumor. As much as liberals would like to believe that there's these republican trailer trash on welfare somewhere; it doesnt add up. And it's definitely not the norm. Why would welfare trailer-trash vote against their own free handouts?
Like you said, uneducated, creationist NASCAR fans?
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
We are actually always closer to being on the verge of war than people think regardless of which party is in power.
We probably wont have to worry about having to overthrow the government with Trumps feds trying to give up federal power to the states. In all honesty, the thing many of us do fear when it comes to usefulness of 2nd amendment is what many call the zombie apocalypse. Zombies being the inner city riff-raff which in the event of localized infrastructure collapse will join in gang like mobs to rob and loot from the homes and businesses of the productive class. Those who responsibly saved food and what not will be attacked by those who lived hedonistically moment to moment completely unprepared for any misfortune in their life. These inner city poor people are dangerous, very physically fit due to the fact they dont have a regular job much, no stress, they mostly sleep, workout, eat, down protein shakes, play sports etc. If not on the government's dime then on their parent's. Come a hurricane, flood, EMP, or nuke, these people will be ready to attack us; and we need to be forever vigilant & ready
I dunno, I figure the rural conservatives are more likely to revert to warring tribalism over food stores while the urban populations die out fast because the poor can't find any pop tarts and the rich can't find anything organic. And neither group can open tins because you guys have all the ammo.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm sick of being on the side who is inexplicably banned from making thinly veiled insinuations and sweeping blanket generalisations and is instead almost always held to to a legal standard of debate here.
As someone I consider an intellectual (a label intended as complimentary) I find the above impassioned plea in favor of sweeping generalizations to be disturbing.
Being banned from weak arguments is far from inexplicable, it's precisely what gives intellectualism authority.
I'm glad you're not that frequent a poster here, el chupacabra.
oh bessy bessy bessy, well unfortunately for you I like your threads. But you do take yourself too seriously. And you should say the same next time you see someone balling about da president. He's not gonna do anything to ruin anyone's life. He's a flake. He's already pulled a 180 on his stance on climate change & has made pretty clear the abortion thing isnt a priority for him. All signs are pointing to Trump being reduced to a puppet of the party. At worst he'll be a Bush repeat.
As someone I consider an intellectual (a label intended as complimentary) I find the above impassioned plea in favor of sweeping generalizations to be disturbing.
Being banned from weak arguments is far from inexplicable, it's precisely what gives intellectualism authority.
And I'm fine with it when both sides are under the same ban. But its part of the classic double standard. Liberals have to be calm, measured and 100% reasonable, conservatives for some reason have carte blanche to call us names, ignore truths, make baseless accusations, quote garbage sources and for some reason don't suffer any loss of credibility when they do so.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
More explorative than one would presume from their ideology.
Exhibit A: Tim Cook and Apple's shitty Chinese labor practices.
OK, except Apple has implemented a pretty rigorous inspection process and a code of ethics for its suppliers. That was despite the fact that most of the fuss that was raised had to do with a reportedly high suicide rate that was in truth well below the national average. Apple can hardly be blamed for the Chinese government.
I'm sure there are better examples than Apple. I'm even more sure there are conservative corporations doing much worse things abroad.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
And I'm fine with it when both sides are under the same ban. But its part of the classic double standard. Liberals have to be calm, measured and 100% reasonable, conservatives for some reason have carte blanche to call us names, ignore truths, make baseless accusations, quote garbage sources and for some reason don't suffer any loss of credibility when they do so.
I don't understand the desire to adopt the strategies of the opponent.
At best it will serve as a vent for frustration, which strikes me as a poor rationale upon which to base abandonment of one's principles.
OK, except Apple has implemented a pretty rigorous inspection process and a code of ethics for its suppliers. That was despite the fact that most of the fuss that was raised had to do with a reportedly high suicide rate that was in truth well below the national average. Apple can hardly be blamed for the Chinese government.
I'm sure there are better examples than Apple. I'm even more sure there are conservative corporations doing much worse things abroad.
What makes Cook and Apple more responsible than an equivalent conservative corporation are their respective ideologies.
The conservative mantra is "profit über alles", so their ideology isn't in conflict with prioritization of profit over treatment of labor.
The liberal mantra is "fair wages and a safety net", which is in conflict with paying a fraction of what they'd need to pay an American worker, and then stashing their pot-o-gold in Ireland.
If the mantra is "throw out the illegals", this is in conflict with hiring them to save on labor costs.
If the mantra is "sanctity of family and marriage", this is in conflict with having a secret gay life.
I don't understand the desire to adopt the strategies of the opponent.
At best it will serve as a vent for frustration, which strikes me as a poor rationale upon which to base abandonment of one's principles.
I just don't like the unfair double standard. I understand there is absolutely a good reason why conservatives are 'allowed' to behave like assholes and morons when they 'debate' liberals but you can't really get anywhere in a discussion when one side is effectively bound by rules of fair play and the other is not. So maybe you may as well just call them names.
They used to work harder to come up with arguments that sounded vaguely plausible in debate. Thats where intelligent design came from. Now they've just given up.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Sorry for this post being touchy feely, but hey, it's Thanksgiving, and... I love you Chongo, BadKosh, and CTP. It must be hard being a white Christian male
Let me address this.
White: hmm Latinos fall into the cracks of demographics. We don't get to benefit from "white privilege". Even though my ancestors are almost all Spaniards (a great grandmother who was German) from the Sante Fe settlement who became US citizens as a result of the Mexican Cession, having Chavez for a last name cancels out any "white privilege"
Another kicker is I'm not Mexican enough because I barely speak Spanish.
Male: (checks pants) yep.
Christian. I get the double whammy. I'm Catholic, so I have to deal with the animus of both non believers and Protestants.
Empathy: My dad died when I was 15. He was 45 and died of cirrhosis of the liver. I drove my mother daily to the VA hospitol and watched my father waste away. He left a wife and seven kids. We went on to have addiction problems of our own.
One of nephews was born with Spina Bifida
I lost a niece to miscarriage at 5 months.
Another niece is SMI.
One of my brothers spent time as guest of Sherriff Joe Arpio.
One of my cousins committed suicide not far from my house.
By the grace of God I have managed to stay out of jail, rehab and the grave.
I could go on,but I will bore you more than I already have.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Nov 28, 2016 at 08:10 PM.
)
What makes Cook and Apple more responsible than an equivalent conservative corporation are their respective ideologies.
I'm not going to pretend that Apple are somehow angelic. They are still a business, they still have pressure to grow and to profit from shareholders (Many of who will be conservative I suspect).
As a business you take a good deal when you get one. You are directly responsible for your own employees, if you choose to take steps to safeguard the employees of your contractors than thats above and beyond IMO. Its also skewed by the media to suit their purpose. No one in the west will give a shit if they call for a boycott or criticism of Foxconn because no-one knows who Foxconn are. It won't sell ad space or page clicks.
Foxconn is making a buttload of money too though, why not go after them? Then you what? Apple is to blame for all the poverty in China? You have to draw the line somewhere. And most of the journalists who draw these lines for us are using MacBook Pros and iPhone 7s they queued up to be first to pay big money for. No hint of blame for themselves of course.
Originally Posted by subego
The conservative mantra is "profit über alles", so their ideology isn't in conflict with prioritization of profit over treatment of labor.
The liberal mantra is "fair wages and a safety net", which is in conflict with paying a fraction of what they'd need to pay an American worker, and then stashing their pot-o-gold in Ireland.
If the mantra is "throw out the illegals", this is in conflict with hiring them to save on labor costs.
If the mantra is "sanctity of family and marriage", this is in conflict with having a secret gay life.
Apple is guilty of one of these and the other two are standard conservative hypocrisy. Moving their pot of gold to the US will cost them what? $50 billion in tax? I'd be fairly pissed at the idea of throwing away $50B, and thats what it is really. Governments waste money, the US especially so. Apple certainly won't see much benefit from handing it over. Certainly £50B worth of gratitude or goodwill.
Its easy for us to moan about them not paying their fair share, but they are already generating and paying billions in tax. They pay income tax for every employee for a start. Then theres the sales taxes on their products.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
... Many of us dont believe in any of the 'everybody's oppressed' stuff to begin with. Of course it happens, but it's such a fringe thing we dont believe in turning everything upside down to fix it. There are far more important problems we need to put our resources into. Liberals have kinda shot themselves in the foot here. When people everywhere are being accused of racism or sexism every time they dont hire someone... even every time they dont smile at someone in the hallway... and people know they werent being kjdfdsfnwhatevercist, then it loses all merit. It makes you think that maybe all the accusations are fake. All stats stating such things are done by professor types who clearly have a political agenda. Not to mention no stats can read people's minds.
Top