Dumb Political Correctness

DGOonE3VwAEsAfa.jpg
 
More stupidity on campus. This time at SMU. Link. It's hard to imagine that a good friend of mine did an affirmative action bake sale there back in 2003. If he did something that "triggering" today, he'd get kicked out of school or at least sent to "sensitivity training l."
 
I didn't vote for Trump, and I don't regret not voting for him. However, if you wonder why people did vote for him in spite of his obvious flaws, look no further than this story.

And this isn't being done to public school (though it would still be a stupid lawsuit if it was). It's being done to a private school, and nobody is forcing the kid to use the boys bathroom. They've offered all kinds of accommodations to the kid, including use of a single-use bathroom. That's what's so fraudulent about this debate. Conservatives are being framed as other people who are strict and obsessed with where people are going to the bathroom, when the Left actually started making these rules in the first place.

Even worse, the Left are the ones who demand complete and total submission to the delusion. Mere accommodation of it isn't enough, and that's what made people feel like they had to elect a guy who would actively fight back. And these aren't just the freaks of the Left. This school is probably going to lose, because actual California policymakers have enacted laws forcing this family's crackpot agenda on the rest of society. It's a mainstream position for Democrats.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Even worse, the Left are the ones who demand complete and total submission to the delusion. Mere accommodation of it isn't enough, and that's what made people feel like they had to elect a guy who would actively fight back. And these aren't just the freaks of the Left. This school is probably going to lose, because actual California policymakers have enacted laws forcing this family's crackpot agenda on the rest of society. It's a mainstream position for Democrats.
Click to expand...
When the Democratic Party goes there ... it goes without me.
 
When the Democratic Party goes there ... it goes without me.
Click to expand...

Both parties are going directions where they leave a lot of votes on the table and there are low turnouts for general elections or unusually high votes for third party candidates.
 
Crockett said:
When the Democratic Party goes there ... it goes without me.
Click to expand...

This is where I don't see an issue with the school accommodations. In most cases I've read, the school offers the student the ability to use the faculty bathroom or other single/family bathroom. I can't fathom that being insufficient for the needs of the transgendered student.
 
Htown77 said:
Both parties are going directions where they leave a lot of votes on the table and there are low turnouts for general elections or unusually high votes for third party candidates.
Click to expand...

The extremes on both sides have become too powerful within the party establishments. How 'bout your side get with my side and creates a viable 3rd party. We'll call it the "Centrists" or maybe the "Common Sense" party.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I can't fathom that being insufficient for the needs of the transgendered student.
Click to expand...

I'm probably not telling you something you don't already know, but the reason is pretty simple. It's not about the bathroom. It's about being acknowledged and approved in the decision to be something that person is not. By saying "no you can't choose to be a girl and use the girl's room, but we'll provide a place where you don't have to feel uncomfortable," you're acknowledging as valid or unavoidable the idea that this person's decision is viewed negatively, or that you're not willing to impose change on someone else in order to support this person's life choice. That's a deal-breaker to the modern progressive.

I'll keep saying this over and over: the left did this to themselves. They have spent the last 30 years convincing people that if you disagree with a leftist position, it's not because of a valid (or even an invalid) alternative viewpoint. It's because you hate those people. We're in a culture that glorifies "anti-hate" more than anything else. We don't necessarily know what is, we just know we can't have it in our society and we'll do whatever we have to do to get rid of it.

This is not going to get better. We're on course for some very ugly confrontations. One side wants the votes too badly to say no. The other side is so scared of being labeled "mean" that it's never going to offer consistent and serious opposition.
 
I know I have reacted that way to the left on many issues. I wasn't very anti-LBGT until a few years ago but now I'm very vocal about my opposition. They had to keep pushing, so now I push back as hard as I know how.
 
I agree. I was all "live and let live" with LGBT but that was not good enough for them. No, we must make them feel good about their life choices, or else. The "or else" is losing them as many or more supporters as it gained, IMO.
 
I take a libertarian stance to LGBT issues. They can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact me. If there is another option to use a separate bathroom then they can. If the only option is Male/Female then I'm more open for them getting to use their choice. I think I'd be more uncomfortable if a dude that looked like a lady walked into the stall next to me than some chick looking like a dude took a dump next to me.

On marriage, their contract doesn't remotely impact me and gives them the same rights (good and bad) that I have so by all means have at it.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I take a libertarian stance to LGBT issues. They can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact me. If there is another option to use a separate bathroom then they can. If the only option is Male/Female then I'm more open for them getting to use their choice. I think I'd be more uncomfortable if a dude that looked like a lady walked into the stall next to me than some chick looking like a dude took a dump next to me.

On marriage, their contract doesn't remotely impact me and gives them the same rights (good and bad) that I have so by all means have at it.
Click to expand...
I have a different opinion on whether it impacts me. I think anything that impacts our culture and the culture my children will inherit impacts me.

As does the left by the way, or else they wouldn't be so concerned with the bathroom issue or gay boy scouts or "hate speech". None of these issues impacts 90% of the public directly. There are very, very, very, very, few scouts that identify as gay and those that were/did weren't being kicked out of scouts unless they took a stand and declared "I am gay, hear me roar." Most effeminate scouts and even those that acted/behaved gay and in many cases where known to be gay were tolerated if not accepted because they had likely spent a few years already in the troop. It's when they declared 'this is the way it is and you MUST accept it', that troops said no.

'You won't make my gay wedding cake',( never mind that I can go 3 blocks down and get one made)....'I'm going to sue you and try to drive you into bankruptcy.'

Cultural issues aren't about whether you are directly impacted either way, they are about what you want the norms and values to be in your culture. They are about what you believe to be right and wrong. And while we don't have to persecute, harm and belittle LGBT and other groups, we sure as heck don't have to accept their choices as normal and we don't have to allow our cultural values(and the constitution) to be ALTERED to accept their choices.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
It's not about the bathroom.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with anything in your post. However, I wish the Right didn't make it about the bathroom when they argue the issue. Talking about dudes going into the women's room is dumb. It's a very superficial angle to look at, and it's where the Right's case is the weakest.

Instead, conservative commentators and advocates should set the record straight about the issue, because pretty much every MSM analysis on the issue is full of propaganda and lies about the issue's history and the bills state legislatures are considering. The false narrative that has been painted is like nothing I've ever seen in politics. Donald Trump gets called a liar by the media a thousand times a day, but he's friggin Honest Abe compared to the media's analysis on this issue.

First, liberals are the ones obsessed with where people use the bathroom, not conservatives. They were the ones who started forcing laws on society dealing with the issue rather than allowing common sense to prevail. This issue wasn't even on the conservative radar until liberal cities started passing idiotic ordinances that forced the agenda on private parties. The state laws are reactions to provocation.

Second, the conservative position and the legislation that codifies it is the libertarian position. It doesn't force rules on 90 percent of public bathrooms. It leaves the issue to the private property owner to decide how he or she sees fit. It only sets rules for government entities, which it has every right to do.

Third, the conservative legislation is far more compromising, far more tolerant, and far less rigid. It sets a general rule but expressly permits accommodations to keep trans people from having to use the bathroom that they seek to avoid. The only thing it doesn't do is completely ignore the interests of non-trans people. It doesn't force the trans-"woman" into the men's locker room. It just protects the normal woman in the locker room from having to get naked next to somebody swinging his junk around her.

But so long as the Right keeps arguing the issue as though they're the ones concerned about where people go to the bathroom, they're going to lose the PR battle.
 
Last edited:
Apparently professional cuddling is booming post-Trump. Link And I remember conservatives being accused of freaking out (sometimes rightly) about Obama getting elected.
 
I see Wasserman Shultz granted an interview with a local paper. She did offer some insight notably absent from hysterical right wing coverage of the situation:
Wasserman Schultz said Awan didn’t have access to any classified information. She and other members of Congress aren’t allowed to store classified information in their offices and on their computers.

When they go to secure locations to receive classified information, the members of Congress aren’t allowed to bring in any kind of electronics — Wasserman Schultz even has to leave her Fitbit fitness tracker outside — and aren’t allowed to leave the room with any written notes.

In 2016, Awan was paid $20,000 by Wasserman Schultz. In 2017, he was paid about $7,800, from the beginning of the year until his July 25 termination. His salary rate didn’t change while his duties changed, spokesman David Damron said.
Click to expand...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...ultz-discusses-imran-awan-20170802-story.html
 
And you just bought that load of garbage from a woman soiled in complicity in this scandal. Wow. :puke: Not to mention she has no clue how IT works.

He was the network administrator with God access to all of their systems. Unless you believe he was merely an office IT technician who fixed common tech problems while being paid astronomical amounts of money.

So what they go to a secure location to receive classified briefings. Members of Congress don't discuss sensitive info through correspondence inside their own network?

Isn't their correspondence with foreign officials at least restricted access? Wtf do members of Congress do in internal email if not discuss sensitive topics the public can only know about through FOIA requests, if approved for our consumption.

I hope people realize how f'n dumb her defense is. She's definitely HRC's minion and uses the same tricks. Let's say all of a corp's division managers only receive highly sensitive corp info directly from the CEO in a secure meeting room.

If the network administrator has 100% access to their email system and internal business correspondence, would he not gather mountains of sensitive info involving the very policies and actions that result from the secured meeting?

You're defending a morally bankrupt scumbag where indisputable evidence showed she rigged the Dem primary race to screw Sanders for HRC.

Nice try, this chic is 100% complicit and screwed eight ways to Sunday on this one.
 
Last edited:
I'll concede that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is a morally bankrupt scumbag. I'm merely pointing out that it's a stretch to assert that she was giving Pakistani Intelligence Services unlimited access to confidential security briefings as implied in some communication from right wing "news" sources I've read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top