Political Correctness

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Schnerch Party

And you've proved a tonne in the thread so far right?

There's nothing to "prove". This is a discussion. People are saying their opinions and thoughts. I said that "the left and right" are stupid definitions to try and consolidate an entire person's belief systems.

And I think political parties shouldn't be allowed in politics. I also am not "alt - right" (a term none of you used prior to the 2016 election) or right wing at all. I believe in the smallest government possible and freedom of speech and body if not hurting anyone. And yes, I honestly put the most factual and logical information into this thread. Some speak much more eloquent than I do but poison can be drunk with kool aid. If you disagree with what I said, let me know what.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Schnerch Party

And you've proved a tonne in the thread so far right?

There's nothing to "prove". This is a discussion. People are saying their opinions and thoughts. I said that "the left and right" are stupid definitions to try and consolidate an entire person's belief systems.

And I think political parties shouldn't be allowed in politics. I also am not "alt - right" (a term none of you used prior to the 2016 election) or right wing at all. I believe in the smallest government possible and freedom of speech and body if not hurting anyone. And yes, I honestly put the most factual and logical information into this thread. Some speak much more eloquent than I do but poison can be drunk with kool aid. If you disagree with what I said, let me know what.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

And I think political parties shouldn't be allowed in politics. I also am not "alt - rigjt" (a term none of you used prior to the 2016 election) or right wing at all. I believe in the smallest government possible and freedom of speech and body if not hurting anyone. And yes, I honestly put the most factual and logical information into this thread. Some speak much more eloquent than I do but poison can be drunk with kool aid. If you disagree with what I said, let me know what.

I continue not to use the term because I don't group beliefs into directions.

Nick is correct in what the definition of political correctness is. He just has a habit of picking out small things in vernacular to try and deviate the point or marginalise the topic. The issue with a lot on the politically correct side is that it's no longer just a view they hold. When they are blocking university entrances to exclusively white students, or when they are trying to create safe spaces and limit what can and can't be said, this is where you have an issue. When they are trying to instigate something because you decided to dress as a native american for Halloween, this is where you have an issue.

The belief of "everyone should be treated equally", which EVERYONE should agree with, becomes skewed by bias and personal agendas. Misreading, or even worse misreporting, statistics to highlight something you feel offended by is an example.

But that doesn't mean that acting with human decency and allowing everyone to do and live their lives is a negative.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

And I think political parties shouldn't be allowed in politics. I also am not "alt - rigjt" (a term none of you used prior to the 2016 election) or right wing at all. I believe in the smallest government possible and freedom of speech and body if not hurting anyone. And yes, I honestly put the most factual and logical information into this thread. Some speak much more eloquent than I do but poison can be drunk with kool aid. If you disagree with what I said, let me know what.

I continue not to use the term because I don't group beliefs into directions.

Nick is correct in what the definition of political correctness is. He just has a habit of picking out small things in vernacular to try and deviate the point or marginalise the topic. The issue with a lot on the politically correct side is that it's no longer just a view they hold. When they are blocking university entrances to exclusively white students, or when they are trying to create safe spaces and limit what can and can't be said, this is where you have an issue. When they are trying to instigate something because you decided to dress as a native american for Halloween, this is where you have an issue.

The belief of "everyone should be treated equally", which EVERYONE should agree with, becomes skewed by bias and personal agendas. Misreading, or even worse misreporting, statistics to highlight something you feel offended by is an example.

But that doesn't mean that acting with human decency and allowing everyone to do and live their lives is a negative.

Originally Posted by Schnerch Party

Nick is correct in what the definition of political correctness is. He just has a habit of picking out small things in vernacular to try and deviate the point or marginalise the topic.

The first point of action in any debate is to make sure you're actually debating the same thing. Once you've agreed what it is that you're debating then you can go from there.

Originally Posted by Schnerch Party

The issue with a lot on the politically correct side is that it's no longer just a view they hold. When they are blocking university entrances to exclusively white students.

There is good reason for this. You can find a good breakdown in the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell but essentially students from low income areas that have a slightly lower test score than those from high income areas tend to achieve roughly the same performance in university. Therefore it makes sense to allow an allotted percentage of students to come from those lower income areas. In the long run this allows families to get themselves out of poverty and become higher earners (the american dream).

Originally Posted by Schnerch Party

Nick is correct in what the definition of political correctness is. He just has a habit of picking out small things in vernacular to try and deviate the point or marginalise the topic.

The first point of action in any debate is to make sure you're actually debating the same thing. Once you've agreed what it is that you're debating then you can go from there.

Originally Posted by Schnerch Party

The issue with a lot on the politically correct side is that it's no longer just a view they hold. When they are blocking university entrances to exclusively white students.

There is good reason for this. You can find a good breakdown in the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell but essentially students from low income areas that have a slightly lower test score than those from high income areas tend to achieve roughly the same performance in university. Therefore it makes sense to allow an allotted percentage of students to come from those lower income areas. In the long run this allows families to get themselves out of poverty and become higher earners (the american dream).

Originally Posted by Nicholas

The first point of action in any debate is to make sure you're actually debating the same thing. Once you've agreed what it is that you're debating then you can go from there.



There is good reason for this. You can find a good breakdown in the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell but essentially students from low income areas that have a slightly lower test score than those from high income areas tend to achieve roughly the same performance in university. Therefore it makes sense to allow an allotted percentage of students to come from those lower income areas. In the long run this allows families to get themselves out of poverty and become higher earners (the american dream).

Well, let's work on your first point; I'm talking about the PHYSICAL prevention of white students (ie. the protest which blocked the university to white students, and not students of colour).

This is when it's an issue. When people are taking their beliefs and trying to use them to silence the beliefs of others, such as safe spaces or the previously mentioned blocking of white students (a racist act).

While I tend to agree with your irrelevant point, fulfilling a quota for students of colour isn't the same as affirmative action as it deliberately excludes disadvantaged white people.

Originally Posted by Nicholas

The first point of action in any debate is to make sure you're actually debating the same thing. Once you've agreed what it is that you're debating then you can go from there.



There is good reason for this. You can find a good breakdown in the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell but essentially students from low income areas that have a slightly lower test score than those from high income areas tend to achieve roughly the same performance in university. Therefore it makes sense to allow an allotted percentage of students to come from those lower income areas. In the long run this allows families to get themselves out of poverty and become higher earners (the american dream).

Well, let's work on your first point; I'm talking about the PHYSICAL prevention of white students (ie. the protest which blocked the university to white students, and not students of colour).

This is when it's an issue. When people are taking their beliefs and trying to use them to silence the beliefs of others, such as safe spaces or the previously mentioned blocking of white students (a racist act).

While I tend to agree with your irrelevant point, fulfilling a quota for students of colour isn't the same as affirmative action as it deliberately excludes disadvantaged white people.

@Mindless I think you're over generalizing a lot of what I said.

@Mindless I think you're over generalizing a lot of what I said.

Originally Posted by Celsius Fears Me

Well, let's work on your first point; I'm talking about the PHYSICAL prevention of white students (ie. the protest which blocked the university to white students, and not students of colour).

This is when it's an issue. When people are taking their beliefs and trying to use them to silence the beliefs of others, such as safe spaces or the previously mentioned blocking of white students (a racist act).

While I tend to agree with your irrelevant point, fulfilling a quota for students of colour isn't the same as affirmative action as it deliberately excludes disadvantaged white people.

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

Originally Posted by Celsius Fears Me

Well, let's work on your first point; I'm talking about the PHYSICAL prevention of white students (ie. the protest which blocked the university to white students, and not students of colour).

This is when it's an issue. When people are taking their beliefs and trying to use them to silence the beliefs of others, such as safe spaces or the previously mentioned blocking of white students (a racist act).

While I tend to agree with your irrelevant point, fulfilling a quota for students of colour isn't the same as affirmative action as it deliberately excludes disadvantaged white people.

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

[Shodan]

Spoiler for Relevant comic:

[Shodan]

Spoiler for Relevant comic:

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

Tbh, from jump you were calling people fascists and other names, implyied non pc people were racist and used ad hominems every chance you got.

You never argued anything of substance.

1) If you believe that Trump and other people should be stopped from saying the stuff they do cuz it could lead to violence, homophobia and misogyny and believe it needs to be curtailed then you also want to go after rappers and curtail their freedom of speech too.

2) Your smug attitude, the fact you started every example you gave with shit like "if you think Mexicans are all rapists" shows you feel you have moral superiority in this discussion. Almost like you think you're arguing against actual nazis.

3) The application of pc when enforced by soecity hinders ones ability to express them self without feeling attacked. Because the PC crowd constantly accuses, ridicules and forces their opinions on you with the implication you are morally inferior if you disagree.

It's funny how you can toss around insults and never provide an ounce of proof or even disprove one thing then again insultingly say "Alex Jones conspiracy posts". You're really an asshole and you insult people then want to be treated differently than you act. You've non stoped used ad hominems and insults. You are just PC so instead of saying how you feel you bust out with sideways comments out your neck.

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

And point out my Tinfoil hat comment? I'm very educated and many in academia agree with my stance on pc. Sorry, it differs from your point view. I know the communist who schooled you taught you to call your opposition racists, fascists and crazy but ain't gonna work this time.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

Tbh, from jump you were calling people fascists and other names, implyied non pc people were racist and used ad hominems every chance you got.

You never argued anything of substance.

1) If you believe that Trump and other people should be stopped from saying the stuff they do cuz it could lead to violence, homophobia and misogyny and believe it needs to be curtailed then you also want to go after rappers and curtail their freedom of speech too.

2) Your smug attitude, the fact you started every example you gave with shit like "if you think Mexicans are all rapists" shows you feel you have moral superiority in this discussion. Almost like you think you're arguing against actual nazis.

3) The application of pc when enforced by soecity hinders ones ability to express them self without feeling attacked. Because the PC crowd constantly accuses, ridicules and forces their opinions on you with the implication you are morally inferior if you disagree.

It's funny how you can toss around insults and never provide an ounce of proof or even disprove one thing then again insultingly say "Alex Jones conspiracy posts". You're really an asshole and you insult people then want to be treated differently than you act. You've non stoped used ad hominems and insults. You are just PC so instead of saying how you feel you bust out with sideways comments out your neck.

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

And point out my Tinfoil hat comment? I'm very educated and many in academia agree with my stance on pc. Sorry, it differs from your point view. I know the communist who schooled you taught you to call your opposition racists, fascists and crazy but ain't gonna work this time.

Originally Posted by Nicholas

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

That, along with the entire concept of safe spaces and the focus on gender equality, recognition of gender identities, racial awareness and other things over focusing on actual education (and often, such as in this case, the actual prevention of education) are when I have a problem with it.

I actually don't think there's a specific issue with the affirmative action racial angle. If anything, from a purely economic standpoint, it will help people feel comfortable to be around people with the same cultural background as them and know that regardless they have that to fall back on. This will make it a more sought after school for many people (even though of course education should be the highlight).

But when it gets to this stage, it annoys me to see the scales tilt. When this exists, and when people of different ethnicities have a much easier route than white people (specifically males) of the same economic position...why are they protesting the majority of "white cis males" in the uni? What can you do? Do you then have to start denying white males who's parents grafted to earn them a spot in that uni...just because of the colour of their skin?

Another example is a review I saw on Kung Fury. This is a pretty brilliant kickstarter comedy film, set in like the 80s, and made by a Scandinavian film crew who are pretty damn independent. essentially the only characters are a police chief, Kung Fury, Kung Fury's friend, two Viking warriors and Hitler.

The film was reviewed by a couple of critics as "lacking diversity". I mean not only is this a pisstake of 80s action movie (hence the chicks with big tits and machine guns) but what did they want? This small film company to go out and specifically hire a black guy to black Jamal, Kung Fury's other friend who...ehh...aids him along the way...or something? They actually wanted a person hired by this film company, who probably barely even know any black people due to their location, and shoehorn the character in to fight a "diversity quota".

I mean you only have to google "Marvel's Iron Fist" and see a massive clusterfuck about the fact that Marvel hired a white person to play this white character, instead of randomly hiring an Asian guy. For some reason those people don't seem to bitch as much about Idris Elba and Samuel L Jackson being black guys playing previously white characters as much.

I think when something is for the right cause, then awesome. Gay marriage for example. Who in the fuck would want to oppose that, other than for religious reasons which apparently isn't understandable as these (cause tolerance is a one way street?). But it's getting more and more common for people to go on and on and on about certain bollocks that is just that, bollocks.

The pink tax - The belief that women pay more for their products than men (completely doesn't take into account the demands on female products, and the large amounts of additional ingredients required for things like 'soft skin' that commonly don't feature on men's products).

The wage gap - Doesn't take into account what jobs people are actually taking up, and simply looks at the average female and average male earnings overall. When you look at specific fields, it's typically roughly the exact same.

Requirement to teach studies on homosexuality in schools - A legitimate thing that's being brought into the UK now I believe. Since when did kids ever get taught about heterosexuality?

People are misdirecting what are actual problems, and instead are professional victims, getting annoyed at every little thing they possibly can. It's getting more ridiculous all the time, and it's sad that they are too stupid to realize the chain reaction they are causing. Every time a regular person goes on Youtube and sees a video of some racist sexist girl, like the bitch frorm MTV Unplugged or whatever it's called, basically saying they are the fucking devil, that guy gets a bit more pissed off. Eventually, a lot of these people are turning to the other side, voting for Trump and Brexit out of randomness just because they know it's the opposite of the people they hate (and that hate them for no apparent reason).

Originally Posted by Nicholas

This is the first good response I've had in this thread. I wish we could have conversations like this as oppose to all the Alex Jones-style conspiracy type shit.

I haven't heard of a protest in which the purpose was to block white people going to university? Can you source that, this is the first I've heard of it so would need to know more before I can comment.

You make a good point regarding affirmative action but I think it's a little surface level. If we set our first criteria for selection as low income and have 500 applicants and 100 spaces now we have to narrow that down again (lets assume they all have the same mark). If our hypothetical university is majority white male then it might make sense to give a higher volume of those 100 spaces to women or people of different races. Again, allowing these people to have an opportunity to better themselves and their families that they wouldn't of got otherwise.

That, along with the entire concept of safe spaces and the focus on gender equality, recognition of gender identities, racial awareness and other things over focusing on actual education (and often, such as in this case, the actual prevention of education) are when I have a problem with it.

I actually don't think there's a specific issue with the affirmative action racial angle. If anything, from a purely economic standpoint, it will help people feel comfortable to be around people with the same cultural background as them and know that regardless they have that to fall back on. This will make it a more sought after school for many people (even though of course education should be the highlight).

But when it gets to this stage, it annoys me to see the scales tilt. When this exists, and when people of different ethnicities have a much easier route than white people (specifically males) of the same economic position...why are they protesting the majority of "white cis males" in the uni? What can you do? Do you then have to start denying white males who's parents grafted to earn them a spot in that uni...just because of the colour of their skin?

Another example is a review I saw on Kung Fury. This is a pretty brilliant kickstarter comedy film, set in like the 80s, and made by a Scandinavian film crew who are pretty damn independent. essentially the only characters are a police chief, Kung Fury, Kung Fury's friend, two Viking warriors and Hitler.

The film was reviewed by a couple of critics as "lacking diversity". I mean not only is this a pisstake of 80s action movie (hence the chicks with big tits and machine guns) but what did they want? This small film company to go out and specifically hire a black guy to black Jamal, Kung Fury's other friend who...ehh...aids him along the way...or something? They actually wanted a person hired by this film company, who probably barely even know any black people due to their location, and shoehorn the character in to fight a "diversity quota".

I mean you only have to google "Marvel's Iron Fist" and see a massive clusterfuck about the fact that Marvel hired a white person to play this white character, instead of randomly hiring an Asian guy. For some reason those people don't seem to bitch as much about Idris Elba and Samuel L Jackson being black guys playing previously white characters as much.

I think when something is for the right cause, then awesome. Gay marriage for example. Who in the fuck would want to oppose that, other than for religious reasons which apparently isn't understandable as these (cause tolerance is a one way street?). But it's getting more and more common for people to go on and on and on about certain bollocks that is just that, bollocks.

The pink tax - The belief that women pay more for their products than men (completely doesn't take into account the demands on female products, and the large amounts of additional ingredients required for things like 'soft skin' that commonly don't feature on men's products).

The wage gap - Doesn't take into account what jobs people are actually taking up, and simply looks at the average female and average male earnings overall. When you look at specific fields, it's typically roughly the exact same.

Requirement to teach studies on homosexuality in schools - A legitimate thing that's being brought into the UK now I believe. Since when did kids ever get taught about heterosexuality?

People are misdirecting what are actual problems, and instead are professional victims, getting annoyed at every little thing they possibly can. It's getting more ridiculous all the time, and it's sad that they are too stupid to realize the chain reaction they are causing. Every time a regular person goes on Youtube and sees a video of some racist sexist girl, like the bitch frorm MTV Unplugged or whatever it's called, basically saying they are the fucking devil, that guy gets a bit more pissed off. Eventually, a lot of these people are turning to the other side, voting for Trump and Brexit out of randomness just because they know it's the opposite of the people they hate (and that hate them for no apparent reason).