political correctness is a veey toxic term. it shouldn't be used anymore because it's getting both increasingly obsfucated and at the same time uncritically "reappropriated," by many people, as something positive
political correctness is the original name for "alternative facts", but it's those lies that are useful for the establishment and act as necesary lies in the ruling ideology. so when something is factually incorrect (it's a lie) it might still be politically correct, as the second best thing, or should i say the very best thing because "virtue signalling" (not real virtue anyway) goes along with it - it's prestigious to know the correct repertoire of lies and algorhythms for formulating new ones.
when something is politically incorrect it's the opposite - it's factually correct (it is a known thing) but it's politically incorrect (a known thing which has become consciously "unknown" because of the dictum of the powers that be - sounds quacky but just imagine maoism, stalinism...of couse the "powers" can be more diffuse and subtle mechanisms than absolute power of one party etc.)
when something is true it cannot be politically correct - true truthfulness consumes, neutralizes the fabricated truthfullness. only lies can be politically correct
when something is a lie it cannot be politically incorect. only truths are politically incorrect.
political correctness is an evil system of mind control. don't accept this framework as something desirable in a society.
political correctness (or doublespeak) has nothing to do with kindnes, sympathy, "not being a jerk"
Let's say your name is Bill Jr. Your whole life people have been calling you junior. It wasn't your idea, just that's what people have done. You're sick of everyone calling you junior. You want to be called Bill. Who's right, the people who are ingrained calling you junior or you for wanting to be called Bill?
Let's say you officially change your name to Bill and drop the junior bit. Then some guy comes around and calls you junior. You ask the guy why? He says he's not politically correct.
This is especially relevant for transgender citizens. What do you think is harder: you taking one extra second and swallowing your personal feelings and calling them what they want to be called (which requires nearly no effort whatsoever) or them having to grow up and live in a society in which many people find them disgusting (and tell them so, and sometimes beat them to a pulp for)?? It's not even an argument.
WASHINGTON — President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Monday, pulling away from Asia and scrapping his predecessor’s most significant trade deal on his first full weekday in office, administration officials said.
Mr. Trump sharply criticized the partnership agreement during last year’s campaign, calling it a bad deal for American workers. Although the deal had not been approved by Congress, the decision to withdraw the American signature at the start of Mr. Trump’s administration is a signal that he plans to follow through on promises to take a more aggressive stance against foreign competitors.
In other action on a busy opening day, Mr. Trump ordered a hiring freeze in the federal workforce, exempting the military. And he reinstituted limits on nongovernmental organizations that operate overseas and receive American taxpayer money from performing abortions. Republican presidents typically impose those restrictions soon after taking office, and Democratic presidents typically lift them when they take over.
The president’s withdrawal from the Asian-Pacific trade pact amounted to a drastic reversal of decades of economic policy in which presidents of both parties have lowered trade barriers and expanded ties around the world. Although candidates have often criticized trade deals on the campaign trail, those who made it to the White House, including former President Barack Obama, ended up extending their reach.
“We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Mr. Trump said as he signed a document formalizing his decision. The withdrawal from the trade pact, he added, is a “great thing for the American worker.”
Aides signaled that Mr. Trump may also move quickly on renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. He is scheduling meetings with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, the two main partners in that pact, first negotiated by the elder President George Bush and pushed through Congress by President Bill Clinton. Nafta has been a major driver of American trade for nearly two decades, but it has long been divisive, with critics blaming it for lost jobs and lower wages.
Mr. Trump outlined his views in his Inaugural Address on Friday, when he promised an “America First” approach to the world. “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs,” he said. “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.”
He said that his policy would be to “buy American and hire American.”
The Obama administration arduously negotiated the Pacific trade pact over eight years. Under legislation passed by Congress, the accord could not be amended once completed, nor could it be joined without congressional approval. Mr. Obama never submitted the partnership for approval, understanding that a defeat in Congress would be worse than leaving the deal in hibernation.
In discarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or T.P.P., Mr. Trump tacked away from his Republican allies in Congress who have long supported such trade agreements. Speaker Paul D. Ryan worked closely with Mr. Obama to pass legislation granting the president so-called fast-track authority to negotiate the trade agreement over the objections of many Democrats. But amid opposition, Congress never approved the deal itself.
The agreement brought together the United States and 11 other nations along the Pacific Rim, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia, creating a free-trade zone for about 40 percent of the world’s economy. It was intended to lower tariffs while setting rules for resolving trade disputes, setting patents and protecting intellectual property.
Mr. Obama and his Republican allies argued that the pact would open growing foreign markets to American businesses. But Democrats, ultimately including Hillary Clinton, even though she had helped push negotiations forward as secretary of state, said it would benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.
Mr. Trump sided with them, and he beat Mrs. Clinton in crucial Midwestern industrial states like Michigan and Wisconsin that had traditionally gone Democratic but have been hurt by changes in manufacturing over recent decades.
The president’s action on the deal came the same day he met with business leaders in the morning and was set to speak with union leaders in the afternoon. He will also meet with congressional leaders of both parties and hold a separate meeting with Mr. Ryan.
How can we abandon something we were never in to begin with?? The TPP was defeated and has been dead in the water for well over a year. Obama tried to push it through, saw over time that public sentiment was against him in a big way, and essentially abandoned his efforts based on public pressure. Not totally pulling out of the negotiations was more a matter of not insulting the countries we negotiated with. It's been dead.
The vast majority of the factory jobs everyone thinks are coming back if we abandon the trade deal (which I'm ambivalent about, I'd prefer it didn't pass, but it was killed by activism, not Trump, long before he took office) are not ever going to materialize. Because technology and automation moved those people aside. I drive a forklift most of the day, and if we ever get to the point where they start making ones that can drive themselves at a cost cheaper than what it would be to pay me to drive it, I'd probably want to start looking into alternatives. Amazingly enough, the same people who believe they are entitled to the same factory job their entire life and think abandoning the TPP will function like Dorothy's magic slippers and PRESTO, here come the jobs, are the same people who will endlessly tell you how lazy people in urban areas on unemployment are. Those jobs are gone forever, and it would be wise of people who are in the coal-mining industry to realize the same thing.
I'm also sure Mr. America First will continue to have nearly all his merchandise made in.....China. Check out the tags on the official Inauguration hats.
Also Trump brings his own cheering crowds to his speeches. At the CIA viewers might have been thinking that the CIA was cheering for him - it was actually his staffers and entourage.
This isn’t the first time Trump has engineered applause.
When he first announced his candidacy, he got wild cheers — from actors who had been paid to applaud him (Trump then stiffed the company that hired them for four months). When he gave his first news conference as president, he filled the back of the room with aides to cheer for him, and jeer at the journalists he was attacking.
Wow. He went full Kirchnerist Argentina over there.
During the 8 years period CFK was the head of the GoonSquad™ in charge of Argentina and it's inhabitants, around 10 National days of this that and whatever else were added. Worth mentioning, Trump made a comment a long time ago that Hillary would leave USA like Argentina, looks who's doin' it kids!
If somebody's evidence is weak, criticize the evidence, not the person. This place is for discussing political issues, not laying judgment on our fellow forumites.
Speaking of triggered and trying to get back on topic... Trump seems to get awfully upset when faced with the truth of his small popularity. Things like inauguration size period. He again repeated the lie today that he would have won the popular vote too if not for those pesky 3-5 million illegal votes for which he has no proof.
Someone should say hey since you keep saying that the election which you (sorta) won was illegitimate, perhaps we should just toss it out and revote. We could bring in neutral observers from foreign countries to inspect the process (sorry I really know you want to bring in your guys only). Those polls that say you are unpopular beyond belief, they're rigged too right? So it should be no problemo.
Speaking of triggered and trying to get back on topic... Trump seems to get awfully upset when faced with the truth of his small popularity. Things like inauguration size period. He again repeated the lie today that he would have won the popular vote too if not for those pesky 3-5 million illegal votes for which he has no proof.
Someone should say hey since you keep saying that the election which you (sorta) won was illegitimate, perhaps we should just toss it out and revote. We could bring in neutral observers from foreign countries to inspect the process (sorry I really know you want to bring in your guys only). Those polls that say you are unpopular beyond belief, they're rigged too right? So it should be no problemo.
I agree with your first paragraph. ( and joke) During the election he was trolling the media hard, now it looks like he's on the receiving end from the media and he doesn't like it.
Someone should say hey since you keep saying that the election which you (sorta) won was illegitimate, perhaps we should just toss it out and revote. We could bring in neutral observers from foreign countries to inspect the process (sorry I really know you want to bring in your guys only). Those polls that say you are unpopular beyond belief, they're rigged too right? So it should be no problemo.
good try but he clearly said the elections are ok as long as he wins, and no that was not a joke on his part
The following is presented without opinion or ancillary comment.
Neil M. Gorsuch, currently sitting on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, is now the leading contender for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the late Justice Scalia. According to the article, his best-known opinions came from the cases brought by evangelical-owned corporations such as Hobby Lobby when they argued that the ACA would violate their religious beliefs by allowing female employees to have access to the full range of contraceptive procedures via health insurance.
"I believe that we have to be honest with the American people, but I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts." —White House press secretary Sean Spicer
@FinneousPJ I frequently disagree about "facts", not only about their validity but also about what constitutes "fact" in the first place. Your comment is a perfect example - you worded it as a statement of fact, yet I'm disagreeing with it.
no, of course people disagree about facts. one person's fact may be another person's falsehood. it doesn't mean that facts are dependent on opinions but there may be different opinions on facts.
two people can have incompatible notions of a part of reality, so one of these notions may be a fact (and the other notion is a falsehood, but it doesn't have to be a lie of course), and neither of them may be a fact. also both may be separate facts, but then the incompatibility is just perceived disagreement and not real disagreement, so two facts can never be alternative to one another, they can only be complementary.
...about kellyanne...we should be fair to her. she was making a very standard point in public conversation. what she wanted to say is that her colleague had an alternative notion (saying "alternative fact" instead is a big gaffe of course), and that his opinion on the fact of who had bigger attendance was different, and that that thing in itself presents a justification for him when he said that, because he thought it to be right (without kellyanne saying herself whether it's right, but, in practical terms, unavoidably implying that she doesn't believe it's right, because in that case she must have taken a more direct route, claiming that simply trump's attendance was bigger and that her colleague was right). she was just making an excuse for her colleague, explaning that what he did is just saying what he thought was in accordance with facts, and not some inexplicable blatant nasty lying (of course, that's exactly what it was)
so if I worked at cnn I would never have put up that chyron saying that alternative facts are lies. it's not fair to her, because she was not claiming it was right for that guy to lie, and call that an "alternative fact" to fool some naive person, she said that he didn't lie
Dakota Access Pipeline is, of course, back on. Since I live in ND, here's what happened: It was originally supposed to go near Bismarck, a 90% white, upper middle-class city. They of course said "not in my backyard, send it to the Indians", which is not only the very definition of institutional racism, but also a direct violation of our treaty with the tribe (what else is new). Of course, when the Native Americans and their allies start protesting, then the white residents of Bismarck think things have gone too far, and that the authorities need to crack down on them. America, in a nutshell. I swear to god, if you place 30% of the population of this country in Germany in the late 30s, they would have been enthusiastic Nazis.
@dunbar You're welcome to disagree about "facts", but you cannot disagree about facts. Facts are by definition provable and known to be true. There is no room to disagree.
Comments
political correctness is the original name for "alternative facts", but it's those lies that are useful for the establishment and act as necesary lies in the ruling ideology. so when something is factually incorrect (it's a lie) it might still be politically correct, as the second best thing, or should i say the very best thing because "virtue signalling" (not real virtue anyway) goes along with it - it's prestigious to know the correct repertoire of lies and algorhythms for formulating new ones.
when something is politically incorrect it's the opposite - it's factually correct (it is a known thing) but it's politically incorrect (a known thing which has become consciously "unknown" because of the dictum of the powers that be - sounds quacky but just imagine maoism, stalinism...of couse the "powers" can be more diffuse and subtle mechanisms than absolute power of one party etc.)
when something is true it cannot be politically correct - true truthfulness consumes, neutralizes the fabricated truthfullness. only lies can be politically correct
when something is a lie it cannot be politically incorect. only truths are politically incorrect.
political correctness is an evil system of mind control.
don't accept this framework as something desirable in a society.
political correctness (or doublespeak) has nothing to do with kindnes, sympathy, "not being a jerk"
MSN article on Trump's TPP-cancelling order: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-abandons-trans-pacific-partnership-obamas-signature-trade-deal/ar-AAm9ewz?li=BBnb7Kz
Trump abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama's signature trade deal
WASHINGTON — President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Monday, pulling away from Asia and scrapping his predecessor’s most significant trade deal on his first full weekday in office, administration officials said.
Mr. Trump sharply criticized the partnership agreement during last year’s campaign, calling it a bad deal for American workers. Although the deal had not been approved by Congress, the decision to withdraw the American signature at the start of Mr. Trump’s administration is a signal that he plans to follow through on promises to take a more aggressive stance against foreign competitors.
In other action on a busy opening day, Mr. Trump ordered a hiring freeze in the federal workforce, exempting the military. And he reinstituted limits on nongovernmental organizations that operate overseas and receive American taxpayer money from performing abortions. Republican presidents typically impose those restrictions soon after taking office, and Democratic presidents typically lift them when they take over.
The president’s withdrawal from the Asian-Pacific trade pact amounted to a drastic reversal of decades of economic policy in which presidents of both parties have lowered trade barriers and expanded ties around the world. Although candidates have often criticized trade deals on the campaign trail, those who made it to the White House, including former President Barack Obama, ended up extending their reach.
“We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Mr. Trump said as he signed a document formalizing his decision. The withdrawal from the trade pact, he added, is a “great thing for the American worker.”
Aides signaled that Mr. Trump may also move quickly on renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. He is scheduling meetings with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, the two main partners in that pact, first negotiated by the elder President George Bush and pushed through Congress by President Bill Clinton. Nafta has been a major driver of American trade for nearly two decades, but it has long been divisive, with critics blaming it for lost jobs and lower wages.
Mr. Trump outlined his views in his Inaugural Address on Friday, when he promised an “America First” approach to the world. “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs,” he said. “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.”
He said that his policy would be to “buy American and hire American.”
The Obama administration arduously negotiated the Pacific trade pact over eight years. Under legislation passed by Congress, the accord could not be amended once completed, nor could it be joined without congressional approval. Mr. Obama never submitted the partnership for approval, understanding that a defeat in Congress would be worse than leaving the deal in hibernation.
In discarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or T.P.P., Mr. Trump tacked away from his Republican allies in Congress who have long supported such trade agreements. Speaker Paul D. Ryan worked closely with Mr. Obama to pass legislation granting the president so-called fast-track authority to negotiate the trade agreement over the objections of many Democrats. But amid opposition, Congress never approved the deal itself.
The agreement brought together the United States and 11 other nations along the Pacific Rim, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia, creating a free-trade zone for about 40 percent of the world’s economy. It was intended to lower tariffs while setting rules for resolving trade disputes, setting patents and protecting intellectual property.
Mr. Obama and his Republican allies argued that the pact would open growing foreign markets to American businesses. But Democrats, ultimately including Hillary Clinton, even though she had helped push negotiations forward as secretary of state, said it would benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.
Mr. Trump sided with them, and he beat Mrs. Clinton in crucial Midwestern industrial states like Michigan and Wisconsin that had traditionally gone Democratic but have been hurt by changes in manufacturing over recent decades.
The president’s action on the deal came the same day he met with business leaders in the morning and was set to speak with union leaders in the afternoon. He will also meet with congressional leaders of both parties and hold a separate meeting with Mr. Ryan.
The vast majority of the factory jobs everyone thinks are coming back if we abandon the trade deal (which I'm ambivalent about, I'd prefer it didn't pass, but it was killed by activism, not Trump, long before he took office) are not ever going to materialize. Because technology and automation moved those people aside. I drive a forklift most of the day, and if we ever get to the point where they start making ones that can drive themselves at a cost cheaper than what it would be to pay me to drive it, I'd probably want to start looking into alternatives. Amazingly enough, the same people who believe they are entitled to the same factory job their entire life and think abandoning the TPP will function like Dorothy's magic slippers and PRESTO, here come the jobs, are the same people who will endlessly tell you how lazy people in urban areas on unemployment are. Those jobs are gone forever, and it would be wise of people who are in the coal-mining industry to realize the same thing.
I'm also sure Mr. America First will continue to have nearly all his merchandise made in.....China. Check out the tags on the official Inauguration hats.
Also Trump brings his own cheering crowds to his speeches. At the CIA viewers might have been thinking that the CIA was cheering for him - it was actually his staffers and entourage.
This isn’t the first time Trump has engineered applause.
When he first announced his candidacy, he got wild cheers — from actors who had been paid to applaud him (Trump then stiffed the company that hired them for four months). When he gave his first news conference as president, he filled the back of the room with aides to cheer for him, and jeer at the journalists he was attacking.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/23/this-is-how-donald-trump-engineers-applause/
We all have been to youtube before.
Also, my pronouns are not preferred. Guy.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/23/arrest-madonna-for-blow-up-the-white-house-remark-says-newt-gingrich
Someone should say hey since you keep saying that the election which you (sorta) won was illegitimate, perhaps we should just toss it out and revote. We could bring in neutral observers from foreign countries to inspect the process (sorry I really know you want to bring in your guys only). Those polls that say you are unpopular beyond belief, they're rigged too right? So it should be no problemo.
@TakisMegas It's better not to "trigger" forumites as it quickly can lead to violations and warnings.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/trump-calls-time-on-americas-trade-deals-what-does-it-all-mean-a7542266.html
The analysis of the effects are from a UK perspective but interesting nonetheless.
(the famous "if I win" quote)
Neil M. Gorsuch, currently sitting on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, is now the leading contender for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the late Justice Scalia. According to the article, his best-known opinions came from the cases brought by evangelical-owned corporations such as Hobby Lobby when they argued that the ACA would violate their religious beliefs by allowing female employees to have access to the full range of contraceptive procedures via health insurance.
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer
no, of course people disagree about facts. one person's fact may be another person's falsehood. it doesn't mean that facts are dependent on opinions but there may be different opinions on facts.
two people can have incompatible notions of a part of reality, so one of these notions may be a fact (and the other notion is a falsehood, but it doesn't have to be a lie of course), and neither of them may be a fact. also both may be separate facts, but then the incompatibility is just perceived disagreement and not real disagreement, so two facts can never be alternative to one another, they can only be complementary.
...about kellyanne...we should be fair to her.
she was making a very standard point in public conversation.
what she wanted to say is that her colleague had an alternative notion (saying "alternative fact" instead is a big gaffe of course), and that his opinion on the fact of who had bigger attendance was different, and that that thing in itself presents a justification for him when he said that, because he thought it to be right (without kellyanne saying herself whether it's right, but, in practical terms, unavoidably implying that she doesn't believe it's right, because in that case she must have taken a more direct route, claiming that simply trump's attendance was bigger and that her colleague was right). she was just making an excuse for her colleague, explaning that what he did is just saying what he thought was in accordance with facts, and not some inexplicable blatant nasty lying (of course, that's exactly what it was)
so if I worked at cnn I would never have put up that chyron saying that alternative facts are lies. it's not fair to her, because she was not claiming it was right for that guy to lie, and call that an "alternative fact" to fool some naive person, she said that he didn't lie
please consider what i said in the first half of my last post, it was directed to you actually