Dumb Political Correctness

ProdigalHorn said:
Yeah we do have to own up to grunge. That's on us...
Click to expand...

Two points on that. First, it's on them, not me. I never liked grunge. I liked alternative music, but I leaned on the Jane's Addiction side, not the Nirvana side.

Second, for the sake of discussion, I'll accept responsibility for grunge. ÀMost grungers listened to Nirvana and Pearl Jam for awhile, and yes, they sometimes reeked of cigarettes and body odor. However, by 22 years old, most turned into adults, took showers, burned their flannel shirts, got jobs, got married, and started families. I'd rather be blamed for a crappy musical genre than a culturally destructive lifestyle.
 
Mr. Deez said:
First, it's on them, not me. I never liked grunge. I liked alternative music, but I leaned on the Jane's Addiction side, not the Nirvana side.
Click to expand...

It's an intersectionality world we live in. It doesn't matter what YOU did or didn't do. Your group is responsible. On the plus side, it makes figuring people out a lot easier in that we don't have to actually do that anymore...

Mr. Deez said:
However, by 22 years old, most turned into adults, took showers, burned their flannel shirts, got jobs, got married, and started families.
Click to expand...

I am actually pretty proud of our "group" in this respect - most of the Gen Xers I know are pretty level-headed and reasonable, and aren't out there throwing fits about being ignored - largely because most of us DO have jobs and careers and families to deal with and just don't have time/inclination to get involved in all that stuff.

I suspect that the left is going to deeply regret ignoring us, because that's what they do when they push the crazy like they have this past two years.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Repealing the 19th would solve 90 percent of our problems and eliminate the need to dump the 26th. I even know many women who agree. However, once we let that genie out of the bottle, it became a permanent move.


.
Click to expand...

There is a very strong statistical correlation (and I would argue causation) in the appearance and growth of the nanny state, in the broadest terms, and passage of 19.
(Puns coincidental)
 
Mr. Deez said:
....We really shouldn't have a hard, fast rule, because the society changes. In the '40s, I wouldn't have minded 18 year olds voting, but we're getting less mature now. 30 is the new 18, and 18 is the new 9. I'd make 30 the voting age now. By then, a kid has usually been out of college long enough to have at least some idea of how the world works and how to make a living.
Click to expand...

I would argue if you have never paid property taxes you are not a full citizen and should not enjoy 1-to-1 voting rights with those who have.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Conservatives who didn't get why "all lives matter" wasn't an appropriate response to BLM now get a pretty clear example of why it wasn't.
Click to expand...

I guess I still don't get it, but it's possible you don't get it, so maybe you could clarify that view.

You are saying a response to a BLM movement built on a fraudulent narrative and pushed to divide blacks from whites to try to keep blacks voting for Democrats should be viewed in the same light as the Democrats' mushy apology that only addresses the specific problem, a verifiable Jew hating Muslim, indirectly?
 
As the parent of two Gen-Xers and one millennial, I don't see where being part of different generations had any more influence on them than their astrology signs.
 
iatrogenic said:
You are saying a response to a BLM movement built on a fraudulent narrative and pushed to divide blacks from whites to try to keep blacks voting for Democrats should be viewed in the same light as the Democrats' mushy apology that only addresses the specific problem, a verifiable Jew hating Muslim, indirectly?
Click to expand...

No. You're conflating two things, which is easy to do since they pretty well blur together, and I wasn't clear in writing it. One is the BLM itself, its leaders, its organization, its agenda. The other - which I'm talking about - is the statement or slogan "Black Lives Matter." It has nothing to do with any specific instance, such as the Michael Brown incident which has been shown to a fraudulent narrative. It was by many people simply a statement that we can't tolerate black people being shot by the police unnecessarily. You can debate the underlying facts of that, and certainly you can show that the numbers don't match with what's being touted, but the second you do that, you have now (in their mind) excused or minimized the person who (according to their understanding) has been shot without cause. And we all know it's happened - which begs the question why the left keeps jumping on the instances that turn out to be made up or exaggerated. And that's the reason why the phrase is used - because their perception is that by discounting it as "just business as usual," you're saying that it isn't a big deal. So they respond that "Black Lives Matter" - because in their mind, they don't matter to some people.

So of course, the response is "it's not just black people, other people get shot too. Black lives aren't uniquely special - ALL lives matter." And I would like to think that the VAST majority of people agree with both of these statements. No one in America with any sanity wants innocent people of any color or race or gender or religion gunned down in this country. And yet we got into huge arguments about it.

The reason: Because if you're going to a funeral for someone who was a great athlete, and you get up to do the eulogy and say "Yes he was great, but there are a lot of people who are great athletes. We should take this time to celebrate ALL of them, not just this one person," we would all get why that's inappropriate. It minimizes the point of the occasion, which is to celebrate a specific person and to grieve with specific people about a specific loss they feel.

So when someone says "Black Lives Matter" and you respond "No, ALL lives matter," they see that as you minimizing their loss, their suffering, their pain, because you're basically saying "there's no issue here, you need to get over it." Whether that's true or not, it's not productive and it's sure not going to help the debate.

So now we have a situation where the Democrats have done EXACTLY what they demonized many conservatives for doing. They clearly did it for the purposes of minimizing their own racism within their ranks. And as conservatives, I hope we can see that parallel, and maybe understand more why saying "All Lives Matter" as a response is taken as being dismissive of racism and police brutality that does exist - even if not in the volume that some claim. And maybe we need to ask ourselves a pretty hard question too: is our response an attempt to minimize or ignore the idea that there actually are instances of racism in law enforcement? You don't have to accept the Michael Brown narrative to acknowledge that those things do happen and they're not acceptable.
 
Joe Fan said:
1_03eb63865998e3f59a4db9964c9e6a72.jpg
Click to expand...
A good compromise is whether 18-24 year are claimed by an adult for tax purposes
Mr. Deez said:
As a Gen Xer (albeit on the younger end of it), I found this pretty interesting. Lol.
Click to expand...
As a 50 year old, I can relate as all my bosses have been boomers and the recent new hires have been millennials. What the millennials don’t understand is that it’s not going to get much better when the boomers are out of the workforce and they have to work for Gen X. It will get slightly better, but not by much.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
No. You're conflating two things, which is easy to do since they pretty well blur together, and I wasn't clear in writing it. One is the BLM itself, its leaders, its organization, its agenda. The other - which I'm talking about - is the statement or slogan "Black Lives Matter." It has nothing to do with any specific instance, such as the Michael Brown incident which has been shown to a fraudulent narrative. It was by many people simply a statement that we can't tolerate black people being shot by the police unnecessarily. You can debate the underlying facts of that, and certainly you can show that the numbers don't match with what's being touted, but the second you do that, you have now (in their mind) excused or minimized the person who (according to their understanding) has been shot without cause. And we all know it's happened - which begs the question why the left keeps jumping on the instances that turn out to be made up or exaggerated. And that's the reason why the phrase is used - because their perception is that by discounting it as "just business as usual," you're saying that it isn't a big deal. So they respond that "Black Lives Matter" - because in their mind, they don't matter to some people.

So of course, the response is "it's not just black people, other people get shot too. Black lives aren't uniquely special - ALL lives matter." And I would like to think that the VAST majority of people agree with both of these statements. No one in America with any sanity wants innocent people of any color or race or gender or religion gunned down in this country. And yet we got into huge arguments about it.

The reason: Because if you're going to a funeral for someone who was a great athlete, and you get up to do the eulogy and say "Yes he was great, but there are a lot of people who are great athletes. We should take this time to celebrate ALL of them, not just this one person," we would all get why that's inappropriate. It minimizes the point of the occasion, which is to celebrate a specific person and to grieve with specific people about a specific loss they feel.

So when someone says "Black Lives Matter" and you respond "No, ALL lives matter," they see that as you minimizing their loss, their suffering, their pain, because you're basically saying "there's no issue here, you need to get over it." Whether that's true or not, it's not productive and it's sure not going to help the debate.

So now we have a situation where the Democrats have done EXACTLY what they demonized many conservatives for doing. They clearly did it for the purposes of minimizing their own racism within their ranks. And as conservatives, I hope we can see that parallel, and maybe understand more why saying "All Lives Matter" as a response is taken as being dismissive of racism and police brutality that does exist - even if not in the volume that some claim. And maybe we need to ask ourselves a pretty hard question too: is our response an attempt to minimize or ignore the idea that there actually are instances of racism in law enforcement? You don't have to accept the Michael Brown narrative to acknowledge that those things do happen and they're not acceptable.
Click to expand...

You're spouting the talking points very well, but it's still nonsense. First, the Left claims that "All Lives Matter" is saying "no big deal," but they're wrong. We don't have to accept their ******** terms of the discussion. Second, the funeral analogy is nonsense. A funeral honors an specific deceased individual, so yes, saying "people die everyday" at an individual's funeral would be pretty callous. The "Black Lives Matter" movement is not being deployed for a specific death (whether justifiable or not) but for a broad agenda. It's not like a funeral.

The reason the Left doesn't like when people say "all lives matter" is not that it minimizes anybody's pain, because it doesn't minimize it anymore than saying "black lives matter." (After all, a guy like Michael Brown isn't just "another black guy" to his family. He's a unique individual.) They don't like it because it diminishes their broad narrative that blacks are uniquely targeted by police for being shot. They want that narrative presumed and to be beyond debate.
 
Happy International Womens Day everyone

Time to step back and let the women kill the spiders, open the jars, fight the wars, roughneck the platform, mine the coal, unclog the toilets, cut down the timber, and all the other dangerous/****** jobs feminists want no part of.

giphy.gif
 
Mr. Deez said:
First, the Left claims that "All Lives Matter" is saying "no big deal," but they're wrong.
Click to expand...

No disagreement here.

Mr. Deez said:
Second, the funeral analogy is nonsense. A funeral honors an specific deceased individual, so yes, saying "people die everyday" at an individual's funeral would be pretty callous. The "Black Lives Matter" movement is not being deployed for a specific death (whether justifiable or not) but for a broad agenda. It's not like a funeral.
Click to expand...

It's the same concept though - a better example would probably be a benefit for cancer survivors where someone makes the argument that heart disease is just as devastating or something like that. Again, no one would debate that (you would hope), but by making that point, I don't know how you'd interpret it as anything other than detracting from the impact of the event's intent. The point is not to let "The Left" get away with anything. But we're going to have to find a way to get along with the 30-40 percent swing voters out there who don't see this stuff as a left-right debate. Do we use the same language with those people as we do with the AOCs of the world, who we know have political agendas? I don't think we should.

Mr. Deez said:
The reason the Left doesn't like when people say "all lives matter" is not that it minimizes anybody's pain, because it doesn't minimize it anymore than saying "black lives matter." (After all, a guy like Michael Brown isn't just "another black guy" to his family. He's a unique individual.) They don't like it because it diminishes their broad narrative that blacks are uniquely targeted by police for being shot. They want that narrative presumed and to be beyond debate.
Click to expand...

This an example of what I mentioned above - conflating "BLM" and "The Left" with the guy I know who doesn't see why anyone would object to saying that "Black Lives Matter." Maybe you guys don't see that as much. I live in the Northeast (for the next two weeks, anyway) and I see this a lot. Plenty of people out there will make that observation with absolutely no understanding or concern for the overall BLM movement or being part of a political party. And if you can't make that distinction when talking to people that you disagree with, it just makes the polarization in the country worse.

When you saw the Dems' "apology," did you call BS? I would hope you did, just like the rest of us did. I think most of us interpreted it as someone recognizing that their person said something stupid or at least unacceptable, but wanted to deflect it or avoid admitting that they actually agreed with her, and so they made a big general statement condemning ALL kinds of speech. We believe that because we see their character and their track record in other actions and statements. But if this happened in a vacuum - if a company I worked for did this - I would say that it's more likely they did it because a bunch of people complained about being left out and they wanted to be inclusive to everyone. Theoretically that's a possibility, but knowing these people as a group, I don't believe that's the case.

So all i was trying to say is that when someone on your Facebook feed or Twitter feed or work group or whatever makes a comment like that, maybe the first response shouldn't be to make a more generalized statement that they will almost surely interpret as minimizing their issue. There's plenty of people who have genuine reactions to this stuff, and the answer is to try and be as clear as we can about what we're saying, rather than falling back into the stuff we say when we're "owning the libs."
 
Joe Fan said:
These guys are going to erase every female world record in every sport for all time. Then they are going come for all the Title IX schollies......
Click to expand...

The best female soccer players in Australia were defeated by 15 year old boys 7-0.

D1KS0kzW0AA0GbH.jpg
 
Rotten Tomatoes deleted 45,000 audience reviews from Captain Marvel

And guess what?

It's still Rotten

D1KtgCyX0AEszex.png

tenor.gif
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
I didn't hear about the Smollet story until the fraud charges were pretty rampant. It was out there, I guess, but I was totally unmotivated to investigate anything about it. I couldn't have exploited it to bash the left's narrative. Your test would fail were I the subject.
Click to expand...

 
Joe Fan said:
LOL

D1I5yNFX0AES2YS.jpg
Click to expand...
Not at all uncommon to be blocked by him...he is one of those that uses the block lists, so if you dared to follow the 'wrong' person or dared not to engage in group think, you get mass-blocked. It's almost a badge of honor LOL!
 
No kidding. They want voters who can be easily mesmerized by the never ending flow of pro-democrat crapola spewed nightly on TV and social media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top