Dumb Political Correctness

[Seattle Husker]

Milo's popularity among the alt-right is now a product of the left?

 

[Joe Fan]

Milo's popularity among the alt-right is now a product of the left?

Their efforts to censor him dramatically increased his exposure and introduced him to a new audience. He profited. It's the American Way.

 

[nashhorn]

Peter Pan was a clovergender? Darn, I always liked Pan.

 

[mchammer]

Obvious question: why don't clover-gendered people date their own if they prefer the immature?

 

[NJlonghorn]

Our two-party systems seems to eliminate any chance at all of true statesmanship.

This. Our single biggest problem is that we have to choose between the left and the right.

 

[iatrogenic]

This. Our single biggest problem is that we have to choose between the left and the right.

I would be supportive of choosing between what works and what doesn't, using empirical evidence to back up the decisions.

 

[Joe Fan]

That is an expected progression of thinking from the left. Animals are next.

Progressive steps to making paedophilia a form of sexual orientation.
Eventually garnering legal protection.
The wheels are already turning.

 

[Joe Fan]

Obvious question: why don't clover-gendered people date their own if they prefer the immature?

Stretch it out. It is all generally headed this way, thanks to Kennedy and Obergfell v. Hodges
Marry your brother or sister. Both?
Marry your grandma, yer cuz.
Marry your mom. Reverse that and its your child.
Marry your pet
Marry a cartoon, your car, your sex toy.
Your favorite football team.
Your dead ancestor.
What about a cloned version of yourself? Bound to be a screenplay on this plot already.
Democracy can no longer stop you.

 

[Joe Fan]

for fux sake .....

Kentucky High School Ditches Stallion Mascot After It’s Deemed Sexist
http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/409591015.html

 

[horninchicago]

for fux sake .....

Kentucky High School Ditches Stallion Mascot After It’s Deemed Sexist
http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/409591015.html

Unbelievable.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[iatrogenic]

I'm good with this. Everyone that was a slave please step forward.

 

[nashhorn]

So I can say what the heck about dissing the 'Stallion' mascot but I wouldn't want to be named the 'Mares', but that's just me.

 

[iatrogenic]

So I can say what the heck about dissing the 'Stallion' mascot but I wouldn't want to be named the 'Mares', but that's just me.

I believe Troy Aikman's high school was the Henrietta Hens. Very intimidating.

 

[mchammer]

I'm good with this. Everyone that was a slave please step forward.

Or the son or grandson of a slave.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Statalyzer]

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 see you point, but I think the two situations have a categorical difference between them. In one case, an exchange is made between two parties only due to cheating, deception, fraud, etc, that the one party would never have made otherwise. In the other case there are two big differences: an exchange is not made, and nobody is cheated. Somebody is definitely wronged, but I don't think that we the right to tell someone else "you must make this deal with someone else", but it does have the right to say "you may not make this deal based on intentional falsehoods on your part".

 

[Joe Fan]

.....
Marry your brother or sister. Both?
Marry your grandma, yer cuz.
Marry your mom. Reverse that and its your child.
Marry your pet
Marry a cartoon, your car, your sex toy.
Your favorite football team.
Your dead ancestor......

Or, marry your own self

 

[Mr. Deez]

In the other case there are two big differences: an exchange is not made, and nobody is cheated.

Respectfully, why is the presence of an exchange a determinative factor? If I rear end you on the highway no exchange has taken place and no cheating took place. It was a simple accident, but I'll bet you'll want me to cover your losses.

Somebody is definitely wronged, but I don't think that we the right to tell someone else "you must make this deal with someone else", but it does have the right to say "you may not make this deal based on intentional falsehoods on your part".

Antidiscrimination laws don't force anyone to make a deal. They prohibit you from making the person's race, sex, religion, etc. the reason why you're not making the deal. For example, if you're hiring an employee and you turn down the black applicant because he wanted more money, was less qualified, because you didn't like the way he dressed, etc., you're within your rights to do that.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Or, marry your own self

I'm sure there's no correlation with a desire to marry self with the growing belief that the most important relationship anyone has is loving and accepting him/herself.

 

[nashhorn]

Ok, so if I marry myself can I get married filing jointly tax status? Hmmmm

 

[Monahorns]

A free market doesn't mean that fraud is allowed in specific cases. Consumer protection can come from private entities like a type of insurance or arbitration service. Just because government regulation is used today to protect consumers doesn't mean that they are the only way to accomplish the task.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A free market doesn't mean that fraud is allowed in specific cases. Consumer protection can come from private entities like a type of insurance or arbitration service. Just because government regulation is used today to protect consumers doesn't mean that they are the only way to accomplish the task.

I'm not suggesting that you stop being a free market just because you have consumer protection laws. Nevertheless, consumer protection can't come from private entities alone. Insurance carriers pay claims, because a court (a public entity) will enforce the insurance contract against them. Arbitration awards don't have much teeth anyway, but what little they have exists because they can be taken into a court and turned into a judgment.

 

[Monahorns]

There are other ways enforce things than have a governments. That is just the way we enforce things today.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There are other ways enforce things than have a governments. That is just the way we enforce things today.

Without governments, things are enforced according to who has physical power. If you can beat somebody's *** or had a friend who could do it for you, then you could enforce something. If a large number of people thought you committed a crime, a violent mob could show up at your house and settle the score in accordance with their passions at that given time. Most people wouldn't want the world to work that way.

 

[Run Pincher]

Or, marry your own self

If you marry yourself do you say "I Do" once or twice?

 

[Htown77]

Without governments, things are enforced according to who has physical power.

Extremes produce extremes. Extremist capitalism of the 1800s (child labor, etc) caused Karl Marx to sit down and write a book that changed the world and caused/still causes a lot of pain and suffering.

The PC socialist crowd and the over the top libertarians drive one another to silly extremes and do not seem to realize it. There are plenty of middle issues to fight about without going to some grand "put the government in charge of everything/nothing" extreme that would not improve anything.

 

[Joe Fan]

If you marry yourself do you say "I Do" once or twice?

"I do do" would seem kinda silly
But, then, the entire event is silly, so why not?

 

[Statalyzer]

I thought the same thing. What educational purpose was served by pointing this out?

Without the context, it's impossible to know. We know there is a correlation between race and poverty. We know there is a correlation between fatherless kids (possibly motherless too, I'm not sure) and poverty, and also fatherless kids and crime. There's also a correlation between poverty and crime. There's also a correlation between race and fatherless kids. Which of these are the causes of which other ones? And if one of those is the primary cause of the others - what is the cause of that? In a discussion like that, discussing out-of-wedlock birth rates by race might be pretty relevant, especially if asking, "Is there anything we can do in terms of legal systems or social customs to change it?"

Fourth, if you're a politically correct, elite social liberal, Trump is a very direct slap in the face to you in a way that previous Republican nominees were not. Guys like the Bushes, Rubio, Kasich, Romney, etc. were formally social conservatives, but they usually didn't emphasize those issues and tried to placate those who disagreed with them. In contrast, pissing off politically correct social liberals was what Trump was all about. He didn't just disagree with them. He was openly hostile to them and made that hostility a centerpiece of his campaign. Furthermore, he appealed to and associated with the people such liberals despise the most and love to ridicule - middle Americans, particularly those who are Bible-believing Christians.

I think that narrative is correct, but the interesting thing is that given an individual identifying as "conservative", also identifying as "Evangelical" and/or regularly attending church both meant that person was less likely to be a Trump supporter.

This is as much fun as hearing Ted Cruz excoriate the "climate change alarmists" for "name calling" in identifying him and others as "climate change deniers."

If someone uses the phrase "climate-change deniers" then their unwillingness to use neutral descriptors for those they disagree with indicates they also aren't likely to be willing to discuss things under the assumption that we are both at least semi-normal rational people.

Respectfully, why is the presence of an exchange a determinative factor? If I rear end you on the highway no exchange has taken place and no cheating took place. It was a simple accident, but I'll bet you'll want me to cover your losses.

Fair question. It's not so much "no exchange took place" as "nothing took place" and again, no cheating of anyone. Hitting my car isn't an "exchange", but something did take place - a destruction by you of my property.