Dumb Political Correctness

[Joe Fan]

LOL -- "Students left "traumatized" after Students of Color Conference descended into chaos over who was most oppressed"

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30436/

"This year’s University of California Students of Color Conference unproductively devolved into something of an “oppression Olympics” between different minority groups, prompting arguments between participants and ultimately leading to some canceled sessions at the annual event.

****
She described the conference not only as an “oppression Olympics” but also “a safe space gone wrong” in her opinion article.
........“Tensions got high”........

“One of the students raised a question about why the only issues being discussed were those involving anti-blackness, prompting an African-American student to respond that black students are the most oppressed, to which a Muslim student made a comment about her people being bombed in the Middle East,” a participant told CF.....

“I am very unhappy about how this conference was run. There needs to be accountability for the trauma some of the organizers made. And I didn’t appreciate my workshop being cancelled,” a student named Robert Gardner posted. “It was really hurtful to have other marginalized identities silenced because a small fringe of organizers decided that their oppressions are more important (talk about Oppression Olympics)…UC Irvine needs to formerly apologize to everyone for what they did because people were truly traumatized by their actions.”

Gardner went on to say that this oppression, by UC Irvine Student Association, “can’t stand.”
"

 

[Joe Fan]

One year into a social "science" degree

 

[Phil Elliott]

Who is Buck Ryan anyway?

Well, "Buck Naked" was George Constanza's preferred porno stage name, is that what you are thinking of?

 

[Joe Fan]

A "progressive's" view of the History of America --
Indian Genocide
Black Slavery
Civil War
Ellis Island
Holocaust
MLK
Gay Marriage
Orange Hitler
The End

The History of Zimbawe in three headlines

 

[ProdigalHorn]

From what I'm told by a man who does annual mission work in Zimbabwe, Mugabe typically gave away farmland to generals or political cronies, none of whom had any interest or skill in farming. So you could go past miles and miles or usable farmland with equipment sitting and rusting away out in the field, because there's no one out farming the land.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Mugabe was a typical despot. He was Hugo Chavez before Hugo. Seize power, find a boogeyman to placate the masses, and confiscate private property all with the explicit purpose of centralizing power for themselves.

 

[mchammer]

Mugabe was a typical despot. He was Hugo Chavez before Hugo. Seize power, find a boogeyman to placate the masses, and confiscate private property all with the explicit purpose of centralizing power for themselves.

So, your kinda guy? JUST JOKING.

 

[Joe Fan]

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has a spring semester class on "The Problem of Whiteness.”
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8540


This is the prof

 

[Joe Fan]

Mugabe was a typical despot. He was Hugo Chavez before Hugo. ......

Mugabe is a lefty. At various times, he self-identified as Marxist, African Nationalist and/or Socialist. Which, of course, when combined the power of government, begat .....

 

[Joe Fan]

March to December
Life comes at you fast

 

[Monahorns]

I just wish we could all legally discriminate the way we want without government support or opposition. Ultimately bigotry loses in that situation.

 

[mchammer]

I just wish we could all legally discriminate the way we want without government support or opposition. Ultimately bigotry loses in that situation.

You can, it's called private clubs. The problem has been the public sector getting into everyone's business.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I just wish we could all legally discriminate the way we want without government support or opposition. Ultimately bigotry loses in that situation.

The problem is that without anti-discrimination laws, bigotry might lose on the collective level, but it won't lose on the individual level. The purpose of such laws is to grant a remedy to individuals who are harmed by discrimination.

To be clear, I oppose most federal antidiscrimination laws, because most of them are unconstitutional. However, state legislatures and state courts should definitely grant a remedy to individuals harmed by arbitrary discrimination.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I just wish we could all legally discriminate the way we want without government support or opposition. Ultimately bigotry loses in that situation.

I would be all for any privately owned business being able to serve or not serve anybody they wish, for any reason. The only requirement I would ask the government to enforce? You must put a clearly visible sign at the entrance to your business that openly advertises and defines who you will not serve.

This way customers can choose to do business or not with the people therein. The public can choose to boycott or not. The public can choose to protest or not. If there is no sign visible, you have no legal right to refuse service.

So, lawyers, is this a feasible idea?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would be all for any privately owned business being able to serve or not serve anybody they wish, for any reason. The only requirement I would ask the government to enforce? You must put a clearly visible sign at the entrance to your business that openly advertises and defines who you will not serve.

This way customers can choose to do business or not with the people therein. The public can choose to boycott or not. The public can choose to protest or not. If there is no sign visible, you have no legal right to refuse service.

So, lawyers, is this a feasible idea?

Under current law, no. If the public was willing to go along with it could the law be changed to allow this and make it feasible? Of course. Is that likely to happen? No.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Seems to me it is the freest of the free market solutions to the problem. I understand that under current law it is illegal because we have written laws that carve out protected subgroups of people. Nevertheless, I think market forces would more effectively eliminate the problem of discrimination than anything our politicians can cough up.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[I35]

With these Liberals talking like this makes it seem like this isn't America anymore.

 

[Statalyzer]

Seems to me it is the freest of the free market solutions to the problem. I understand that under current law it is illegal because we have written laws that carve out protected subgroups of people. Nevertheless, I think market forces would more effectively eliminate the problem of discrimination than anything our politicians can cough up.

Was just having a conversation recently about this. There are so many layers upon layers of these laws, that, say, an apartment complex basically can't treat it's good tenants differently that bad ones. Because then the bad tenant just has to find some sort of demographic they don't fit into and the onus is on the owner to prove there was no discrimination.

 

[Clean]

Do these white liberal dumbasses, like George Ciccariello-Maher, think they aren't white any more? Have they gone full Barak and suppressed those white genes entirely?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Seems to me it is the freest of the free market solutions to the problem.

That may be true, but one of the reasons we have laws is so that individuals don't have to accept an injustice that the free market would otherwise tolerate at least on an individual level. For example, if you shelled out $60K for a BMW that the sales rep told you was brand new and then you brought it home and found out that it was previously owned and had been in a wreck, the freest of free markets would dictate that you take it in the shorts for the $60K and learn not to buy a BMW again. Of course, if BMW made a habit of this, nobody would trust them, and they'd be out of business. However, you would be screwed. By granting you a cause of action for fraud and/or deceptive trade practices, you don't have to get hosed for $60K, whether BMW screws only you and suffers no market consequences or screws millions and loses everything.

Similarly, the freest of free markets might weed out discrimination on the broadest level, but that doesn't do anything for the person who's being discriminated against. The civil rights laws allow him not to accept that injustice, and I agree with that. He shouldn't have to.

I understand that under current law it is illegal because we have written laws that carve out protected subgroups of people. Nevertheless, I think market forces would more effectively eliminate the problem of discrimination than anything our politicians can cough up.

The written statutes are actually neutral. They don't carve out protected groups. The problem is that some executive agencies and judges sometimes decide that their personal political agendas are more important to them than doing their jobs of enforcing and applying the laws as written. That's how laws that prohibit sex discrimination turn into mandates that schools let a dude in a dress use the women's bathroom. That's how laws that prohibit racial discrimination get twisted into allowing race discrimination if it's to promote "diversity." Well, that's a problem with people, not the laws, so we should dump those people and keep the laws.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The written statutes are actually neutral. They don't carve out protected groups. The problem is that some executive agencies and judges sometimes decide that their personal political agendas are more important to them than doing their jobs of enforcing and applying the laws as written. That's how laws that prohibit sex discrimination turn into mandates that schools let a dude in a dress use the women's bathroom. That's how laws that prohibit racial discrimination get twisted into allowing race discrimination if it's to promote "diversity." Well, that's a problem with people, not the laws, so we should dump those people and keep the laws.

That's a fair analysis. I suppose I was blaming the statutes rather than the twisted and distorted leftist interpretation of said statutes.

 

[Htown77]

Well, that's a problem with people, not the laws, so we should dump those people and keep the laws

This. It is amazing the "new, hidden meanings" liberal judges seem to be able to find.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Seems to me it is the freest of the free market solutions to the problem. I understand that under current law it is illegal because we have written laws that carve out protected subgroups of people. Nevertheless, I think market forces would more effectively eliminate the problem of discrimination than anything our politicians can cough up.

Your proposal would eliminate one of the big problems with allowing discrimination as a "free market" solution. The theory of a free market requires information to be freely available to decision-makers. If you force companies to publicize the basis on which they discriminate, buyers can make an informed decision.

I still believe that discrimination is pernicious, but if it had to be done out in the open I guess it would be less pernicious.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The written statutes are actually neutral.

This is often true, but not always.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This is often true, but not always.

What's an example of one that isn't? I'm not saying they don't exist. I just don't know about them.

 

[NJlonghorn]

What's an example of one that isn't? I'm not saying they don't exist. I just don't know about them.

The first one that comes to mind is a New Jersey statute (N.J.A.C. 17:27-3.5) that requires companies bidding for public contracts to use "affirmative action" to ensure a diverse workforce.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The first one that comes to mind is a New Jersey statute (N.J.A.C. 17:27-3.5) that requires companies bidding for public contracts to use "affirmative action" to ensure a diverse workforce.

That's pretty inside.

 

[Joe Fan]

With these Liberals talking like this makes it seem like this isn't America anymore.

Now liberal snowflakes want to regulate VR content

Women complaining of being virtually groped http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/technology/virtual-reality-sexual-assault/

Lefites also want to police the morals of VR games. They argue that game players should players not be given any "moral choices" - that these should be decided ahead of time for them.
“Sometimes when game designers set up ‘player choices’ the choice itself is immoral because it shouldn’t be up to the player to make it. The point here is that the ‘player choice’ itself is an artificial construct that carries political messages no matter what players choose.”


Other say all virtual violence should be illegal http://motherboard.vice.com/read/should-murder-in-vr-be-illegal?utm_source=mbtwitter

 

[mchammer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/26/at-the-university-of-oregon-no-more-free-speech-for-professors-on-subjects-such-as-race-religion-sexual-orientation/?postshare=541482804169191&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.891ee2b35cd

For the lawyers. Free speech is dead.