I think that discussion should be about specific ideas, behaviours and political mechanisms, not buzzwords like "political correctness", "fascism", "feminazism", "bigotry", and so on.
That is certainly not an easy thing given the current political climate.
It's far easier than you may think. All it requires is approaching the subject with a basic level of respect for other people. I've found that people tend to respond in kind.
We've actually been doing just that in this very thread almost constantly for nearly 200 pages. On every topic from abortion to tax policy, people in this thread have managed to talk in concrete terms about real issues without degenerating into personal attacks. Only occasionally does the discussion become vague and theoretical.
As I have said more than once before, let us move away from poorly-defined buzzwords and discuss specific events and policies.
I think that discussion should be about specific ideas, behaviours and political mechanisms, not buzzwords like "political correctness", "fascism", "feminazism", "bigotry", and so on.
That is certainly not an easy thing given the current political climate.
It's far easier than you may think. All it requires is approaching the subject with a basic level of respect for other people. I've found that people tend to respond in kind.
We've actually been doing just that in this very thread almost constantly for nearly 200 pages. On every topic from abortion to tax policy, people in this thread have managed to talk in concrete terms about real issues without degenerating into personal attacks. Only occasionally does the discussion become vague and theoretical.
As I have said more than once before, let us move away from poorly-defined buzzwords and discuss specific events and policies.
@semiticgod As someone in conflict management resolution I do realize that, and I agree with your assessment. It takes respect and the right conditions for the meeting to take place. But, in general, and especially with large groups of ppl, esp. in marches and in situations where there is less than no control and moderation, it can be difficult. Also, while I, and you, may realize it can be made easier, many do not (and I am referring to the public in general). We cannot, and it would be a mistake to assume, that everyone thinks as we do.
In barricaded police situations, and in terrorist negotiations in particular, where one side is 'dug in deeper than an Alabama tick' it is not the easiest thing in the world to accomplish a successful outcome(possible, yes, I wholeheartedly agree).
The current climate has many in such a state that they often hear, or want to hear something inferred that is not said. The mind looks to validate itself, and unfortunately in many instances this leads to problems in conversations. As the moderators here do a pretty darn good job I would say that this site is much better than some groups out there (online or in person).
As to the issue of political correctness, it's prevalence over the years has gotten worse, and one good way to prevent honest discussion and understanding one another is to feel like one's thoughts have been censored. Of course, again, the meeting place and conditions need to be set in a way that acts to prevent the airing of one's feelings to cause major upset and a shutdown of a discussion.
Your entire issue with me comparing a KKK goal with a BLM goal doesn't seem to be it's inaccuracy but rather that it is just merely too "taboo" of a comparison due to the KKK's history?
Even if we pretend that the KKK isn't a bloodthirsty terrorist group responsible for thousands of deaths over the last century, your comparison still doesn't hold water. The KKK preaches actual segregation, that whites and blacks shouldn't live near each other, work in the same places, go to the same schools, get married, etc. In contrast we have one chapter of BLM who didn't want white people at a meeting. Conflating those two is hyperbole at best.
As to the issue of political correctness, it's prevalence over the years has gotten worse, and one good way to prevent honest discussion and understanding one another is to feel like one's thoughts have been censored. Of course, again, the meeting place and conditions need to be set in a way that acts to prevent the airing of one's feelings to cause major upset and a shutdown of a discussion.
In almost every instance of people claiming this, nothing is ever being "shut down" nor is anyone ever being "censored". I have repeatedly earlier in this thread been told I was shutting down discussion while in the middle of engaging in a back and forth exchange. It also assumes the person supposedly shutting down or doing the censoring is CAPABLE of wielding that kind of power. Someone responding forcefully is not some sort of violation of free speech rights. And I believe this is the crux of the issue. Many people are simply of the assumption that liberals are like delicate flowers who will wilt at the first hint of conflict and confrontation. But when people find that isn't the case, and the people who are constantly complaining about political correctness are challenged even the SLIGHTEST bit, the person who is debating them is AUTOMATICALLY labeled as a PC SJW who needs to run to their safe space. Literally ANY response to someone complaining about political correctness goes in this direction. "Political Correctness" itself has morphed into nothing more than simply speaking up for minority or women's rights on ANY issue.
Though our venerated moderator has said we should probably move on from buzzwords, I find that this particular buzzword IS an issue in and of itself. The term "Politically Correct" has become weaponized in the EXACT same way that people who complain about it claim that being called a racist or sexist is by left. Except I have never labeled anyone on this forum one of those things, while I have been accused of being "PC" more times than I can count. So if there is any shutting down of conversation going on, it is taking place with buzz words on both sides of the divide. If liberals have racist, homophobic, and sexist, then the right has invented their own equivalents in PC, SJW, and safe-space. And again, no one gets called the former on this forum. Plenty of people get labeled as the later.
I don't think it's fair to say that political correctness hasn't gotten worse because you moderate fairly. Does anyone remember the Berkeley riots just because a right wing speaker was on campus? The place was captured on video, in flames. Absolute chaos. I've never seen the like and all because of one conservative guy at an event you are not required to attend? Outrageous if you ask me
@jjstraka34 I am talking in general terms here and again I point to the fact that face to face is always the best as things can be MORE EASILY misconstrued online. It is not a reference to you but me speaking in broad terms as a practitioner. As to the reference of 'Shutting down', I refer to a disscussion degenerating into a non-productive one, or at worse, ppl just walking away from a discussion and not gaining a real understanding of the other side true feelings. It can also refer to ppl just not wanting to voice their opinions due to worry of upseting another.
I have been in meeting and discussions where I could feel the tension in the room, and see that ppl were sometimes hesitant to voice their thoughts due to THEIR worry at what they had to say might not be the 'current' prescribed method of referring to things.
A person can FEEL censored even if, in reality, they are not.
In order to really get into someone else shoes, so to speak(as much as can be possible) we need (or I) as a third party neutral moderator, need to get ppl to really open up their feelings so that the other can actually have the chance to 'feel' their emotions. Possibly then can better understanding be reached.
Again, for proper dialogic transformation to occur however, the setting needs to be properly planned.
And yes, 'buzz words', and these may be different for different folks do most definitely have an effect.
In the end, If someone wants, or does not want to follow PC guidleines(whatever those are), fine. But if I am trying to bring about a transformation in a company, organization, or even a husband and a wife, I need all to feel free to say what they need to sometimes in the only way they know how, in order to help and possible transform the situation and/or understanding.
@semiticgod For many years I was in the construction business as a general contractor. I got my 'feet wet' in conflict management with that in trying to guide my employees, partners, suppliers, subcontractors, and some VERY mad customers and neighbors next to job sites, to a better way of communicating, understanding each other, and working together as 'partners'. Anyway, after a while I was the one everyone wanted to send out for the 'tough situations'. The kind where ppl are threatening with guns and settin the dogs on you kind of thing. It was a throw me into the deep end kind of thing at the beginning but I started to learn. After that long phase of my life, and wanting to know and understand more, and to become better at it, I realized that within every field, conflict is a part of our lives, so I went on to graduate lvl work in conflict management & resolution.
I realize however, that I will ALWAYS have more to learn. I also realize that for me, helping others is always easier, in a sense,because it is easier to stay neutral, than helping myself sometimes, hehheh.
Conflict negotiation is something that many times we do not even realize what it is. We each do it every day. It can be something as simple as two ppl deciding on where to go for dinner or something more complex such as child custody case and from there on to law enforcement issues. I still do not have a true focus on one particular issue or type of conflict as there are many that draw my attention, and, sometimes a change can be refreshing.
The country and the world seems to be in such a troubling place right now(not that is was ever calm). I just wish I could do more to help others sometimes, who have trouble understanding one another as that is often the biggest hurdle to overcome.
Anyway, BG is a way to' re-fuel' for me, if that makes sense. And thanks for asking A bit of a long winded response but it is something that both interests me and I care a great deal about.
This might help explain why I often range into a broader response at time, not trying to signal anyone out. I think we all each have our own interests that can bring 'longer replies' out.
I don't think it's fair to say that political correctness hasn't gotten worse because you moderate fairly. Does anyone remember the Berkeley riots just because a right wing speaker was on campus? The place was captured on video, in flames. Absolute chaos. I've never seen the like and all because of one conservative guy at an event you are not required to attend? Outrageous if you ask me
Very interesting point you bring up! That was one incident, I think you'd be hard pressed to find other incidents of hatespeech being shut down in a violent way (never seen the like as you say). As a matter of fact, this incident was discussed earlier in the thread. I find it interesting what our collective selective memories and a short amount of time can do to details that we focus on.
What was important the riots or the guy that was going to speak?
The person who benefited from this "riot" was Milo Yiannopoulos who really cashed in on the sympathy and indignation from that incident. He got a lot of PR that culminated into appearances in several mainstream media appearances including on the Bill Mahr show. Then his comments on pedophilia came out and he kind of stepped back from the mainstream spotlight that he had temporarily gained.
Let me ask you this, knowing what we know now, that he favors pedophilia and, was a minor riot justified to keep that guy from speaking to impressionable college age kids? Is it "outrageous" to not want a pedophile to speak to kids? But anyway, it's interesting that this incident is remembered for the poor "right wing speaker" and the anti-free speech riot as opposed to the speaker who has said some truly awful things such as that he favors sexual relationships between children and men.
If I remember correctly, his remarks on pedophilia came out after the incident, so riots weren't against his view of pedophilia. Bringing that up is like saying that tsarist soldiers were hunting Stalin because of NEP.
Let me ask you this, knowing what we know now, that he favors pedophilia and, was a minor riot justified to keep that guy from speaking to impressionable college age kids? Is it "outrageous" to not want a pedophile to speak to kids? But anyway, it's interesting that this incident is remembered for the poor "right wing speaker" and the anti-free speech riot as opposed to the speaker who has said some truly awful things such as that he favors sexual relationships between children and men.
And this is one of the reasons I am grateful to NOT be an American. What Milo said was outrageous yes... for Americans.
It is hard to find an unedited version of the video so here is the speech transcript:
Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”
*The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.*
Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”
The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”
Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.
Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”
Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.
Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”
Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”
Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”
I actually found it to be disappointingly too mild for a Milo rant. His worst "crime" seems to be that he thinks some 13 year olds have the maturity to consent to adult sexual relationships (a stance I have always agreed too, even as a child I hated the Americanized "sheltered until 18" mentality)
Regardless it was a dumb move by Milo he should have known his sensitive target audience. The media and several anti-Milo personalities tried to crucify Milo (who is a a victim of pedophilia himself) with limited success: - His cancelled book deal makes no difference as he is already getting discussing deals to other finances - Demonizing him just made him an even more popular name - Resigning from Breitbart was IMO the best thing he could have done for his career. Milo really should just be his own brand at this point - He is still visiting schools so this didn't affect his tour incentives at all - The only thing that really hurt Milo was his being disinvited from the CPAC.
The CPAC was Milo's few links left to the mainstream conservatives. Now with him being completely out of that loop AND with him claiming to not be part of the alt-right movement (regardless of being our hero lol) he has no where to stand. Only time will tell if this will make Milo fade out of importance in actual politics.
Even if we pretend that the KKK isn't a bloodthirsty terrorist group responsible for thousands of deaths over the last century, your comparison still doesn't hold water. The KKK preaches actual segregation, that whites and blacks shouldn't live near each other, work in the same places, go to the same schools, get married, etc. In contrast we have one chapter of BLM who didn't want white people at a meeting. Conflating those two is hyperbole at best.
Agreed, highlighted some good points in italic.
Unfortunately old history is largely irrelevant in modern day politics regardless of feelings. The best example is the current Nazi party being completely irrelevant to Adolf Hitler's Nazi party even though they have the similar ideology. This is why I like using the word "Neo" or "modern" to help distinguish between historical and modern day versions of the same name.
Antifa also preaches [actual segregation] as you call it, while BLM just used it for tokenist purposes. So while the KKK, BLM and Antifa all believe in racial segregation to some degree, only the KKK and Antifa believe in [actual segregation].
The problem is many BLM activists are also Antifa activists and this is where the lines get blurred. Another big reason I am focused on the Philadelphia example is that the only pure example of segregation from BLM, the rest are unfortunately Antifa/BLM blended concoctions that you you might argue "well that is not BLM, that is Antifa". Regardless I will throw in a few more examples different from Philadelphia and let you decide
So I guess the argument boils down to what percentage of the BLM movement agrees and/or is sympathetic with hardline actual segregation? Here are a few discussions of "is BLM the black KKK" from various different political viewpoints (I love that it is a black person who is pushing the comparison the hardest).
This idea that "Antifa", apparently some ragtag anarchist collective, is representative of the liberal/left-wing is preposterous. I'm as liberal a poster as there is on this forum and I'd never even HEARD of them until about a month or so ago. It's likely these were the people who caused the problems at Berkely, since administrators at the school commented that no students were arrested and no one knew who the masked perpetrators were. Spoiled little shits with alot of money to travel have been doing this crap since the WTO in Seattle in 2000.
Point being, you won't find a single person here defending Antifa if you go back 200 pages. When people start talking about them I just roll my eyes (mostly because I find their name annoying as hell). They're jerks who start trash cans on fire and break Starbucks windows. Great, lock them up for it. You won't find a single person here who disagrees.
And again, you're just STATING that Black Lives Matter is in cahoots with this group, as if it's common knowledge, then provide links to Sean Hannity and a Blaze personality and Trump supporters stating they think BLM is like the KKK. I didn't need links to be told that. I KNOW that's what they think. Those same people also think Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
Trump just dropped a bomb so big it wipes out anything within it's mile-wide blast radius on Afghanistan. It's the most destructive weapon in the world that's not a nuke. And Trump has used it less than 100 days into his Presidency. It is inconceivable that scores of civilians wouldn't be killed by this thing by default. Bush and Cheney, who no one can accuse of being timid in the bomb dropping department, never used it.
Remember, Trump asked in a meeting with generals before the election why we have nukes if we don't use them. Anyone who thinks this guy won't play that ultimate card is deluding themselves. To just recap, Trump basically just obliterated everything in 4-mile stretch of Afghanistan.
I agree with @Artona bringing up the riots against Milo in relation to the Pedo speech coming long after the fact doesn't really make any sense...
And this is one of the reasons I am grateful to NOT be an American. What Milo said was outrageous yes... for Americans.
It is hard to find an unedited version of the video so here is the speech transcript:
Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”
*The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.*
Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”
The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”
Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.
Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”
Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.
Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”
Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”
Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”
I actually found it to be disappointingly too mild for a Milo rant. His worst "crime" seems to be that he thinks some 13 year olds have the maturity to consent to adult sexual relationships (a stance I have always agreed too, even as a child I hated the Americanized "sheltered until 18" mentality)
Regardless it was a dumb move by Milo he should have known his sensitive target audience. The media and several anti-Milo personalities tried to crucify Milo (who is a a victim of pedophilia himself) with limited success: - His cancelled book deal makes no difference as he is already getting discussing deals to other finances - Demonizing him just made him an even more popular name - Resigning from Breitbart was IMO the best thing he could have done for his career. Milo really should just be his own brand at this point - He is still visiting schools so this didn't affect his tour incentives at all - The only thing that really hurt Milo was his being disinvited from the CPAC.
The CPAC was Milo's few links left to the mainstream conservatives. Now with him being completely out of that loop AND with him claiming to not be part of the alt-right movement (regardless of being our hero lol) he has no where to stand. Only time will tell if this will make Milo fade out of importance in actual politics.
I heartily disagree with you being prepubescent or 13 or whatever is old enough to decide to have sex with adults. I find it pretty sick to be honest. As we may note by the election, even some well meaning grown adults are mislead by people that lie. Kids that age are not capable physically or mentally understanding that an adult is manipulating them. A 13 yr old would not find it easy to fight off a predatory adult's advances.
If people like Milo, well that's their choice to like a scumbag who earns that title from more than just this incident. I wouldn't leave my 13 year old son in his care, would you? Demonizing him for his predilection for pedophilia and other statements has not made him more popular.
I don't know what the right age of consent is, but I don't have a major problem with 18 especially in the United States. The country has a majority Republican government that is against sex education, against providing birth control, will demonize any women who gets pregnant without being married, and is against abortion services. So no I don't trust a 13 yr old to be able to defend themselves or get the support needed from the government in this environment.
I'd be inclined to feel sympathy for Milo's suffered abuse if he hadn't spent the last two years specifically mocking female sexual abuse victims and turning something that actually happens (being triggered by something that reminds you of your assault) into an alt-right, anti-PC buzzword. So screw him.
Trump dropping them mother bomb on ISIS was the best news my work crew and I heard today. Pretty much everything @Shandyr said was on the money, many people consider this good news indeed....
I wouldn't leave my 13 year old son in his care, would you?
Yes I would Unlike you, I prefer to trust both my son's intelligence and maturity....
Keep in mind I frequently travel to countries with an age of consent LOWER than 13. This means even if I had the American "you're a kid until 18" ideology I still would be forced at some point to trust my hypothetical teen son to make sound judgements. Milo is not American (or very Americanized) so it makes sense for him to not agree with American ideology here.
I don't understand your scorn for the Adult American voting public. Just because you believe they were "mislead" doesn't mean they actually were? It might be a good idea for the left to stop making excuses for a Trump victory at this point...
Trump dropping them mother bomb on ISIS was the best news my work crew and I heard today. Pretty much everything @Shandyr said was on the money, many people consider this good news indeed....
I wouldn't leave my 13 year old son in his care, would you?
Yes I would Unlike you, I prefer to trust my son's intelligence....
Keep in mind I frequently travel to countries with an age of consent LOWER than 13. This means even if I had the American "you're a kid until 18" ideology I still would be forced at some point to trust my hypothetical teen son to make sound judgements. Milo is not American (or very Americanized) so it makes sense for him to not agree with American ideology here.
I don't understand your scorn for the Adult American voting public. Just because you believe they were "mislead" doesn't mean they actually were? It might be a good idea for the left to stop making excuses for a Trump victory at this point...
I already said it's not only that an adult can mentally outmaneuver a child, but can physically as well. I'm not making excuses for Trump victory. The jokes on all of us unfortunately since Republicans won't lift a finger to stop him.
Trump dropping MOAB is pretty insignificant. Do you believe ISIL was like omg I see the error of my ways and wish to convert to Christianity just because one big bomb was dropped in one place. OR maybe they still hate westerners and Western values and still have all the territory they had. Which do you think is more likely? It was another PR stunt by a historically unpopular popular vote loser.
We're stuck with this guy who worked with a foreign power to get elected and is a disgusting human being. He makes the worst decisions possible for workers, women, minorities, the environment, children, and so on.
Everyone not an extremely rich white male is worse off under this guy. I guess he might help some coal miners get some more black lungs and help companies pollute drinking water. While the rest of the world invests in renewable energy, this is just dumb.
Trump dropping them mother bomb on ISIS was the best news my work crew and I heard today. Pretty much everything @Shandyr said was on the money, many people consider this good news indeed....
No surprise.
There's a certain mechanic in this thread. People who are shocked by Trump's actions post news about his latest what they perceive to be his shortcomings.
But they don't realize that those "shortcomings" is what other people see as his strength.
In theory I could join in. I could list all the reasons why I think Trump is horrible and unfit to be a president. The irony is, most of those reasons would be the exact reasons why many people like Trump.
And that is why this mechanic here in this thread doesn't work.
If you post anything in this thread in expectation to shock anyone about Trump then you should consider that actually it can also make people like Trump more.
There is no point in trying to show how "bad" Trump is or why. Because people who like Trump like him BECAUSE of those things and NOT despite them.
I'm perfectly aware of that dynamic and have said that exact thing in probably no less than a dozen posts in the past, saying, verbatim, that they like him BECAUSE of what he is, not in spite of it. I don't post anything hoping to shock anyone about Trump and nothing I have said in the past would indicate this. As a matter of fact, I'm the one who has been specifically saying the whole time to take him seriously and NOT be shocked by what he does, while nearly everyone else was downplaying his actual statements. I am well aware of how Trump voters and supporters think. I'd sooner beat my head against a brick wall for 12 hrs than try convince a conservative voter in this country of anything. I think it's a lost cause.I'm not trying to change minds, I'm standing up for my side.
One incident, yes, among many. The nearly violent incident at DePaul, the self defense shooting and overall chaos at Seattle, the countless times security fees were hiked last second in defiance of federal law...
how many do we need to prove a trend here? It's not even just Milo that this is happening to. Violent incidents over conservative Gavin Mcinnis at New York as well. This is all just last year.
"I'd sooner beat my head against a brick wall for 12 hrs than try convince a conservative voter in this country of anything."
I voted Trump. I don't regret it when weighed against Clinton at all. I'm registered as a democrat and primary voted Sanders. But i'd call myself center right.
That seems to be the general tenor of the thread, but i don't think it's a fair one.
One incident, yes, among many. The nearly violent incident at DePaul, the self defense shooting and overall chaos at Seattle, the countless times security fees were hiked last second in defiance of federal law...
how many do we need to prove a trend here? It's not even just Milo that this is happening to. Violent incidents over conservative Gavin Mcinnis at New York as well. This is all just last year.
There is absolutely no proof the Seattle shooter was acting in self-defense, and in fact, felony assault charges are likely to be filed here. Not to mention this husband and wife apparently initially mislead authorities as to whose gun it was and who fired it.
"I'd sooner beat my head against a brick wall for 12 hrs than try convince a conservative voter in this country of anything."
I voted Trump. I don't regret it when weighed against Clinton at all. I'm registered as a democrat and primary voted Sanders. But i'd call myself center right.
That seems to be the general tenor of the thread, but i don't think it's a fair one.
I wouldn't attempt to convince you either. I mean, I'm certainly not going to try to persuade someone who cast a vote for Bernie Sanders that Donald Trump is the polar opposite of everything Bernie Sanders has stood for his entire life. I suspect you already know this, so what would be the point??
I don't think it says anything about me when i'm told by a stranger that i'm beyond the bounds of reason-ability by virtue of vaguely defined political disagreement. Quite the opposite, I tend to think it reflects far more poorly on the one who draws such drastic lines based on so little information.
@jjstraka34: If you genuinely believe that people cannot be reasoned with, there is no point in posting in a political discussion except to vent. But this thread is not for venting. This thread is here for people to discuss politics.
Besides, if you have so little respect for somebody that you won't speak to them, you can't very well complain if they don't listen to you.
Shandyr- there is no point to your comment other than a further attempt to stir the pot. And i'm not here for petty bickering. Let's just leave it at that.
Comments
We've actually been doing just that in this very thread almost constantly for nearly 200 pages. On every topic from abortion to tax policy, people in this thread have managed to talk in concrete terms about real issues without degenerating into personal attacks. Only occasionally does the discussion become vague and theoretical.
As I have said more than once before, let us move away from poorly-defined buzzwords and discuss specific events and policies.
Also, while I, and you, may realize it can be made easier, many do not (and I am referring to the public in general). We cannot, and it would be a mistake to assume, that everyone thinks as we do.
In barricaded police situations, and in terrorist negotiations in particular, where one side is 'dug in deeper than an Alabama tick' it is not the easiest thing in the world to accomplish a successful outcome(possible, yes, I wholeheartedly agree).
The current climate has many in such a state that they often hear, or want to hear something inferred that is not said. The mind looks to validate itself, and unfortunately in many instances this leads to problems in conversations.
As the moderators here do a pretty darn good job I would say that this site is much better than some groups out there (online or in person).
As to the issue of political correctness, it's prevalence over the years has gotten worse, and one good way to prevent honest discussion and understanding one another is to feel like one's thoughts have been censored. Of course, again, the meeting place and conditions need to be set in a way that acts to prevent the airing of one's feelings to cause major upset and a shutdown of a discussion.
In almost every instance of people claiming this, nothing is ever being "shut down" nor is anyone ever being "censored". I have repeatedly earlier in this thread been told I was shutting down discussion while in the middle of engaging in a back and forth exchange. It also assumes the person supposedly shutting down or doing the censoring is CAPABLE of wielding that kind of power. Someone responding forcefully is not some sort of violation of free speech rights. And I believe this is the crux of the issue. Many people are simply of the assumption that liberals are like delicate flowers who will wilt at the first hint of conflict and confrontation. But when people find that isn't the case, and the people who are constantly complaining about political correctness are challenged even the SLIGHTEST bit, the person who is debating them is AUTOMATICALLY labeled as a PC SJW who needs to run to their safe space. Literally ANY response to someone complaining about political correctness goes in this direction. "Political Correctness" itself has morphed into nothing more than simply speaking up for minority or women's rights on ANY issue.
Though our venerated moderator has said we should probably move on from buzzwords, I find that this particular buzzword IS an issue in and of itself. The term "Politically Correct" has become weaponized in the EXACT same way that people who complain about it claim that being called a racist or sexist is by left. Except I have never labeled anyone on this forum one of those things, while I have been accused of being "PC" more times than I can count. So if there is any shutting down of conversation going on, it is taking place with buzz words on both sides of the divide. If liberals have racist, homophobic, and sexist, then the right has invented their own equivalents in PC, SJW, and safe-space. And again, no one gets called the former on this forum. Plenty of people get labeled as the later.
I have been in meeting and discussions where I could feel the tension in the room, and see that ppl were sometimes hesitant to voice their thoughts due to THEIR worry at what they had to say might not be the 'current' prescribed method of referring to things.
A person can FEEL censored even if, in reality, they are not.
In order to really get into someone else shoes, so to speak(as much as can be possible) we need (or I) as a third party neutral moderator, need to get ppl to really open up their feelings so that the other can actually have the chance to 'feel' their emotions. Possibly then can better understanding be reached.
Again, for proper dialogic transformation to occur however, the setting needs to be properly planned.
And yes, 'buzz words', and these may be different for different folks do most definitely have an effect.
In the end, If someone wants, or does not want to follow PC guidleines(whatever those are), fine. But if I am trying to bring about a transformation in a company, organization, or even a husband and a wife, I need all to feel free to say what they need to sometimes in the only way they know how, in order to help and possible transform the situation and/or understanding.
After that long phase of my life, and wanting to know and understand more, and to become better at it, I realized that within every field, conflict is a part of our lives, so I went on to graduate lvl work in conflict management & resolution.
I realize however, that I will ALWAYS have more to learn. I also realize that for me, helping others is always easier, in a sense,because it is easier to stay neutral, than helping myself sometimes, hehheh.
Conflict negotiation is something that many times we do not even realize what it is. We each do it every day. It can be something as simple as two ppl deciding on where to go for dinner or something more complex such as child custody case and from there on to law enforcement issues.
I still do not have a true focus on one particular issue or type of conflict as there are many that draw my attention, and, sometimes a change can be refreshing.
The country and the world seems to be in such a troubling place right now(not that is was ever calm). I just wish I could do more to help others sometimes, who have trouble understanding one another as that is often the biggest hurdle to overcome.
Anyway, BG is a way to' re-fuel' for me, if that makes sense. And thanks for asking
A bit of a long winded response but it is something that both interests me and I care a great deal about.
This might help explain why I often range into a broader response at time, not trying to signal anyone out. I think we all each have our own interests that can bring 'longer replies' out.
What was important the riots or the guy that was going to speak?
The person who benefited from this "riot" was Milo Yiannopoulos who really cashed in on the sympathy and indignation from that incident. He got a lot of PR that culminated into appearances in several mainstream media appearances including on the Bill Mahr show. Then his comments on pedophilia came out and he kind of stepped back from the mainstream spotlight that he had temporarily gained.
Let me ask you this, knowing what we know now, that he favors pedophilia and, was a minor riot justified to keep that guy from speaking to impressionable college age kids? Is it "outrageous" to not want a pedophile to speak to kids? But anyway, it's interesting that this incident is remembered for the poor "right wing speaker" and the anti-free speech riot as opposed to the speaker who has said some truly awful things such as that he favors sexual relationships between children and men.
It is hard to find an unedited version of the video so here is the speech transcript:
Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”
*The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.*
Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”
The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”
Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.
Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”
Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.
Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”
Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”
Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”
I actually found it to be disappointingly too mild for a Milo rant. His worst "crime" seems to be that he thinks some 13 year olds have the maturity to consent to adult sexual relationships (a stance I have always agreed too, even as a child I hated the Americanized "sheltered until 18" mentality)
Regardless it was a dumb move by Milo he should have known his sensitive target audience. The media and several anti-Milo personalities tried to crucify Milo (who is a a victim of pedophilia himself) with limited success:
- His cancelled book deal makes no difference as he is already getting discussing deals to other finances
- Demonizing him just made him an even more popular name
- Resigning from Breitbart was IMO the best thing he could have done for his career. Milo really should just be his own brand at this point
- He is still visiting schools so this didn't affect his tour incentives at all
- The only thing that really hurt Milo was his being disinvited from the CPAC.
The CPAC was Milo's few links left to the mainstream conservatives. Now with him being completely out of that loop AND with him claiming to not be part of the alt-right movement (regardless of being our hero lol) he has no where to stand. Only time will tell if this will make Milo fade out of importance in actual politics.
Antifa also preaches [actual segregation] as you call it, while BLM just used it for tokenist purposes. So while the KKK, BLM and Antifa all believe in racial segregation to some degree, only the KKK and Antifa believe in [actual segregation].
The problem is many BLM activists are also Antifa activists and this is where the lines get blurred. Another big reason I am focused on the Philadelphia example is that the only pure example of segregation from BLM, the rest are unfortunately Antifa/BLM blended concoctions that you you might argue "well that is not BLM, that is Antifa". Regardless I will throw in a few more examples different from Philadelphia and let you decide
So I guess the argument boils down to what percentage of the BLM movement agrees and/or is sympathetic with hardline actual segregation? Here are a few discussions of "is BLM the black KKK" from various different political viewpoints (I love that it is a black person who is pushing the comparison the hardest).
dailywire.com/news/9400/black-preacher-black-lives-matter-worse-kkk-aaron-bandler
huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/sean-hannity-black-lives-matter-kkk_us_5628ff2ee4b0ec0a38936571
https://reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/5hf8e7/do_you_believe_comparing_the_blm_group_to_the_kkk/
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3683567/Conservative-host-Tomi-Lahren-fire-calling-Black-Lives-Matter-new-KKK-critics-say-comments-reckless.html
Point being, you won't find a single person here defending Antifa if you go back 200 pages. When people start talking about them I just roll my eyes (mostly because I find their name annoying as hell). They're jerks who start trash cans on fire and break Starbucks windows. Great, lock them up for it. You won't find a single person here who disagrees.
And again, you're just STATING that Black Lives Matter is in cahoots with this group, as if it's common knowledge, then provide links to Sean Hannity and a Blaze personality and Trump supporters stating they think BLM is like the KKK. I didn't need links to be told that. I KNOW that's what they think. Those same people also think Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
Remember, Trump asked in a meeting with generals before the election why we have nukes if we don't use them. Anyone who thinks this guy won't play that ultimate card is deluding themselves. To just recap, Trump basically just obliterated everything in 4-mile stretch of Afghanistan.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/13/provinces-bracing-for-impact-as-liberals-set-to-unveil-proposed-pot-bill.html
If people like Milo, well that's their choice to like a scumbag who earns that title from more than just this incident. I wouldn't leave my 13 year old son in his care, would you? Demonizing him for his predilection for pedophilia and other statements has not made him more popular.
I don't know what the right age of consent is, but I don't have a major problem with 18 especially in the United States. The country has a majority Republican government that is against sex education, against providing birth control, will demonize any women who gets pregnant without being married, and is against abortion services. So no I don't trust a 13 yr old to be able to defend themselves or get the support needed from the government in this environment.
Pretty much everything @Shandyr said was on the money, many people consider this good news indeed....
Unlike you, I prefer to trust both my son's intelligence and maturity....
Keep in mind I frequently travel to countries with an age of consent LOWER than 13. This means even if I had the American "you're a kid until 18" ideology I still would be forced at some point to trust my hypothetical teen son to make sound judgements. Milo is not American (or very Americanized) so it makes sense for him to not agree with American ideology here.
I don't understand your scorn for the Adult American voting public. Just because you believe they were "mislead" doesn't mean they actually were? It might be a good idea for the left to stop making excuses for a Trump victory at this point...
Trump dropping MOAB is pretty insignificant. Do you believe ISIL was like omg I see the error of my ways and wish to convert to Christianity just because one big bomb was dropped in one place. OR maybe they still hate westerners and Western values and still have all the territory they had. Which do you think is more likely? It was another PR stunt by a historically unpopular popular vote loser.
We're stuck with this guy who worked with a foreign power to get elected and is a disgusting human being. He makes the worst decisions possible for workers, women, minorities, the environment, children, and so on.
Everyone not an extremely rich white male is worse off under this guy. I guess he might help some coal miners get some more black lungs and help companies pollute drinking water. While the rest of the world invests in renewable energy, this is just dumb.
Louis C.K. Calls Trump A 'Gross Crook Dirty Rotten Lying Sack Of'...
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
how many do we need to prove a trend here? It's not even just Milo that this is happening to. Violent incidents over conservative Gavin Mcinnis at New York as well. This is all just last year.
I voted Trump. I don't regret it when weighed against Clinton at all. I'm registered as a democrat and primary voted Sanders. But i'd call myself center right.
That seems to be the general tenor of the thread, but i don't think it's a fair one.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-police-seek-felony-assault-charge-against-alleged-shooter-during-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/
But this thread is not for venting. This thread is here for people to discuss politics.
Besides, if you have so little respect for somebody that you won't speak to them, you can't very well complain if they don't listen to you.