Generation Wuss and related crap
11-30-2017, 11:25 PM
#1381
Last few points from the rest of the video.
1. Post modernists think diversity is necessary but definitely diversity by traditional groups like race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. However, there is more diversity (differences) within a group than between groups. Post modernists ignore facts.
2. Post modernists discard biological differences even when social science studies over many decades have proved that biological differences are real and significant. Post modernists ignore facts.
3. What post modernists define as white privilege is actually majority privilege and would be true of Chinese in China or Latinos in Latin America.
4. Post modernists are racist because they attribute characteristics of a group (white males) to every individual in that group as if the group is homogonous which is essentially the definition of racism.
1. Post modernists think diversity is necessary but definitely diversity by traditional groups like race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. However, there is more diversity (differences) within a group than between groups. Post modernists ignore facts.
2. Post modernists discard biological differences even when social science studies over many decades have proved that biological differences are real and significant. Post modernists ignore facts.
3. What post modernists define as white privilege is actually majority privilege and would be true of Chinese in China or Latinos in Latin America.
4. Post modernists are racist because they attribute characteristics of a group (white males) to every individual in that group as if the group is homogonous which is essentially the definition of racism.
Reply
0
0
12-01-2017, 12:51 AM
#1382
Thank you for the TL;DR of the talk, Ryan.
I try to implement these style of arguments habitually in day to day life; I tend also to be extroverted and willing to argue with just about anybody if I feel it is worthy of the time.
Just bringing up 1 or 2 points of the arrogance or misleading ideology's gaps in continuity (and their "holes" of keeping a straight narrative) really astounds people most of the time.
My new perspective that came from a discussion of Trump's tax plan(that's being nice, it was more of a "I hate Trump because I want to do so"), is to have people look at "the rich" as individuals. And in a more general sense, I ask people to name the names of people who have oppressed them or give an identity to this big scary monster of oppression they claim to be fighting. This is usually followed up by them trying to assassinate my character (usual tactics of a person stumbling through a thought process) or a genuine pause for them to realize that the idea of grouping together people and fighting for or against them can be quite a dangerous thought process.
I think this is an easy way to step into the realm of reality-- of individual differences. Any suggestions?
I try to implement these style of arguments habitually in day to day life; I tend also to be extroverted and willing to argue with just about anybody if I feel it is worthy of the time.
Just bringing up 1 or 2 points of the arrogance or misleading ideology's gaps in continuity (and their "holes" of keeping a straight narrative) really astounds people most of the time.
My new perspective that came from a discussion of Trump's tax plan(that's being nice, it was more of a "I hate Trump because I want to do so"), is to have people look at "the rich" as individuals. And in a more general sense, I ask people to name the names of people who have oppressed them or give an identity to this big scary monster of oppression they claim to be fighting. This is usually followed up by them trying to assassinate my character (usual tactics of a person stumbling through a thought process) or a genuine pause for them to realize that the idea of grouping together people and fighting for or against them can be quite a dangerous thought process.
I think this is an easy way to step into the realm of reality-- of individual differences. Any suggestions?
Reply
0
0
12-01-2017, 09:04 AM
#1383
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
My new perspective that came from a discussion of Trump's tax plan(that's being nice, it was more of a "I hate Trump because I want to do so"), is to have people look at "the rich" as individuals. And in a more general sense, I ask people to name the names of people who have oppressed them or give an identity to this big scary monster of oppression they claim to be fighting. This is usually followed up by them trying to assassinate my character (usual tactics of a person stumbling through a thought process) or a genuine pause for them to realize that the idea of grouping together people and fighting for or against them can be quite a dangerous thought process.
CRUZ: When they say rich, they mean taxpayer. Why is it? It’s because the very rich, there aren’t enough of them.His tax plan was a massive tax increase. If you took every single person in America making over a million dollars, and you tax them 100% of their income… it would pay 8% of the cost of Bernie’s tax plan. You know where they get their money? They get it from you. They get it from the middle class.
I’ll give a quote from Bernie in the last debate…
So yes, to answer your question, Jake, if we can explain to people, yeah, you’re going to be paying more in taxes… everybody will pay some more.
So, you’re a single mom working? He says you’re gonna pay some more. You’re a small business owner? He says you’re gonna pay some more. And the reason is there aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires to pay for all the socialism that Bernie and the Democrats want to give away.
SANDERS: This is why politics in America stinks.
CRUZ: Thank you!
I’ll give a quote from Bernie in the last debate…
So yes, to answer your question, Jake, if we can explain to people, yeah, you’re going to be paying more in taxes… everybody will pay some more.
So, you’re a single mom working? He says you’re gonna pay some more. You’re a small business owner? He says you’re gonna pay some more. And the reason is there aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires to pay for all the socialism that Bernie and the Democrats want to give away.
SANDERS: This is why politics in America stinks.
CRUZ: Thank you!
“The rich” to the left is anyone who earns a decent income. Where “decent” can be redefined at will. If you make money in this country, you need to pay more in taxes. According to socialists like Bernie Sanders. Because if you make money, you need to give that money to people who don’t make money. “Fairness” is a socialist’s way of taking your cash at gunpoint. So they can feel better about themselves as they pistol whip you. Pay up, citizen. Do it for your country.
this gave me a little chuckle:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e1a8ed913629
I’m a Depression historian. The GOP tax bill is straight out of 1929.
Republicans are again sprinting toward an economic cliff.
Republicans are again sprinting toward an economic cliff.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2017, 01:17 AM
#1384
Liberal Hysteria on College Campuses
Specific Purpose Statement: I will persuade my audience on the need of, solution to and visualization of the liberal hysteria bred on college campuses.
Central Idea: Political correctness combined with Post-Modernism of thought is leading to division of reality and fantasy, specifically on college campuses.
Please see Monroe’s Motivated Sequence on p. 321 of the textbook
INTRODUCTION (attention)
“There is an ideology, or a system of ideas that form a political opinion, of political correctness to such a degree that the right to freedom of speech is being infringed. There are people that would rather see me censured or dead than give this speech.”
[Show video= https://youtu.be/vj5JXrpwsZs?t=234]
“This is the ramifications of a postmodernist, Marxist, nihilistic, ideology. I am a conservative voice that has been called a racist, sexist, transphobic, bigot homophobe, yet I am none of these things. You must realize I express no hate for anybody’s individual’s identity.”
“I want to share with you all the rising implications of radical political correctness, how we can fight these implications and finally share a dialogue that gives way to a productive society.”
(1) Gain the attention and interest of the audience; (2) Reveal the topic of the speech; (3) Establish credibility and goodwill; (4) Preview the body of the speech.]
(Connective: The first video I showed you is real life. People being chased, harassed and beaten, riots causing millions of dollars in damages and voices being stifled in the name of equity and political correctness.)
BODY (need, satisfaction, visualization)
CONCLUSION (action)
[I will end this speech by giving you some tips on ending the possibility of a tyrannical rule through pursuit of forced equality and diversity. We should be compassionate towards ourselves and others, love others and yourself equally. We should practice gratitude for our great international wealth and beautiful miracle that we can live the lives we do. We must resist self-sabotage, there is no disaster of systemic hate pointed right at you. We must perform acts of kindness to others who share moral values. We must forgive those who do us wrong and let it go. We must be self-confident in our identity and when others disagree with us, it is not an attack. We must realize we may or may not be in control of the world. We must stop blaming others for our suffering. To answer the final question, are feelings or facts more valid; your feelings are valid only if they are based within the parameters of reality, if they are not, and simply a fabrication of your own form of reality, take responsibility for it. Try flipping any situation around and if there is a change of opinion, ask yourself why]
Please critic
Specific Purpose Statement: I will persuade my audience on the need of, solution to and visualization of the liberal hysteria bred on college campuses.
Central Idea: Political correctness combined with Post-Modernism of thought is leading to division of reality and fantasy, specifically on college campuses.
Please see Monroe’s Motivated Sequence on p. 321 of the textbook
INTRODUCTION (attention)
“There is an ideology, or a system of ideas that form a political opinion, of political correctness to such a degree that the right to freedom of speech is being infringed. There are people that would rather see me censured or dead than give this speech.”
[Show video= https://youtu.be/vj5JXrpwsZs?t=234]
“This is the ramifications of a postmodernist, Marxist, nihilistic, ideology. I am a conservative voice that has been called a racist, sexist, transphobic, bigot homophobe, yet I am none of these things. You must realize I express no hate for anybody’s individual’s identity.”
“I want to share with you all the rising implications of radical political correctness, how we can fight these implications and finally share a dialogue that gives way to a productive society.”
(1) Gain the attention and interest of the audience; (2) Reveal the topic of the speech; (3) Establish credibility and goodwill; (4) Preview the body of the speech.]
(Connective: The first video I showed you is real life. People being chased, harassed and beaten, riots causing millions of dollars in damages and voices being stifled in the name of equity and political correctness.)
BODY (need, satisfaction, visualization)
- The freedom of speech is guaranteed in our nation’s constitution, the basis of America. It says, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” (U. S. Const. amend. I).
- And according to my survey, over 90% of you all agree.
- So why is it under attack by so many people on the left political spectrum? Why would someone disagree with someone so much they feel the need to silence them?
- There is a way to describe these actions and it stems from the ideas of political correctness which then in turn come from the ideas of postmodernism and this then came from Marxism.
- In the mid-1900s, when the ideas of Marxism were failing to become reality, there was a slight of hand from the fight of the laborer versus the employer's, to identity politics, the victims versus the oppressors.
- Since the creation in the 1960-1970s, new and social justice oriented fields have grown and consistently bumped heads with the sciences but recently acts of violence against men and women, particularly those deemed disagreeable by the group of “victims” who ironically are now the oppressors in these situations.
- Since the creation in the 1960-1970s, new and social justice oriented fields have grown and consistently bumped heads with the sciences but recently acts of violence against men and women, particularly those deemed disagreeable by the group of “victims” who ironically are now the oppressors in these situations.
- There is a huge contradiction in these fields of thought as well as you can see, they all claim to fight for social justice and equality, yet students and faculty silence campus invited conservative, often-controversial speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos, who is gay, and Ben Shapiro, who is a Jew, through violence and riots. There are some issues with our society, sure, but a lot of these people don't offer any solutions, only complaints. Which all of you said was needed when making an argument.
- There is a way to describe these actions and it stems from the ideas of political correctness which then in turn come from the ideas of postmodernism and this then came from Marxism.
- Using the thought processes of victims groups, you can see the hierarchy of victimhood. At the top currently are transgender people and the bottom are the classic oppressors, those like me, straight, white males.
- You can see this idea in the LGBTQIAPK+ community and the ramifications of such group identities to promote diversity...I have seen it grow from LGB to more and more acronyms, why? Well, it goes like this in the nature of trying to define those who are victims of oppression,
- “Well, I’m oppressed” “Yeah yeah you’re oppressed, join the club” “I am oppressed too” “Okay, you join too and maybe I am oppressing you by being in my marginalized group but at least we share our oppression” And so on and so on, and it is true, we are all oppressed in some way, age, weight, attractive, intelligent, we are all a mess. This is a problem, because you have to keep fractionalize people like so, “I am a black person” “Well I am a black disabled person” “I am a illegal-immagrant, latino, disabled, transgender, pansexaual who can’t get a job and has an alcoholic husband who beats me”
- These are all unfortunately lumped together into one big group identity, but you can’t list all your oppressions. There are just way too many, some of us have lost people close to us, undergone real hate and violence for our opinions, but the biggest issue is, who decided who is the most oppressed? How does any of this help society as a whole? You continue doing this fractionalization of people’s horrible forms of suffering, until you are left with individuals and their individual experiences and it undermines the whole idea that you can even fight for a group’s identity if we are all, in fact, individuals. If we are all indeed suffering from our own individual issues, how can we identify as one large group other than just human beings?
- “Well, I’m oppressed” “Yeah yeah you’re oppressed, join the club” “I am oppressed too” “Okay, you join too and maybe I am oppressing you by being in my marginalized group but at least we share our oppression” And so on and so on, and it is true, we are all oppressed in some way, age, weight, attractive, intelligent, we are all a mess. This is a problem, because you have to keep fractionalize people like so, “I am a black person” “Well I am a black disabled person” “I am a illegal-immagrant, latino, disabled, transgender, pansexaual who can’t get a job and has an alcoholic husband who beats me”
- You can see this idea in the LGBTQIAPK+ community and the ramifications of such group identities to promote diversity...I have seen it grow from LGB to more and more acronyms, why? Well, it goes like this in the nature of trying to define those who are victims of oppression,
- Finally, you'll see a lot of people say someone like me cannot talk about these things because of who I am. Nothing about my character or moral matter, all that matters is my race, gender and sex. I obviously need to check y privileges; immediately discrediting any of my personal suffering.
- And according to my survey, over 90% of you all agree.
- A solution to this argument can be presented is to take your suffering, like many of us do in our day to day lives, and your oppression and bare it. Try to make the world a better place, not through complaining about your inabilities but working hard and accept life is suffering.
- So what can we do about it? If life is suffering, what’s the points?
- Try to reduce it. Take responsibility of your inadequacies, work on them, develop your moral values and stick to them.
- Try to reduce it. Take responsibility of your inadequacies, work on them, develop your moral values and stick to them.
- Do not be a victim of your own version of reality like so many others do today.
- So what can we do about it? If life is suffering, what’s the points?
- Imagine, if you will, a world where everybody took responsibility for their actions and thoughts.
- Also then, imagine if there was an open dialogue between our many different individualities and everybody was able to speak, everybody had the right to speak, and everybody defended people's right to speak.
- Now also imagine how quickly we could fall into an authoritarian government of censure and control. not by the federal government but by the people themselves. All it takes is one radical group to rise unopposed.
- Now I encourage you to realize, this isn’t fiction; if you do not know the events that have taken place this year in May at Evergreen State College in Olympia Washington, I would say you would either be blind willfully or unaware of your blindness to real events of direct causation of these social justice ideologies.
- From Matt Christiansen, a centrist focused on inconsistencies of both sides of the political spectrum, Students demanded control of the campus because they felt a professor, Weinstein who studies why racism occurs and fights against racism, was a racist because the students have redefined what racism is and that black students cannot be racist because they are the victims, and they call him one for refusing to leave campus on a Day of Absence where the student body called for whites to leave the campus for the day. Then enabled by an administration, who they then held by mod ruling for questioning, was able to fully control the campus, force white students to leave, called the campus police transphobic and racist for questioning a student who had claims of harassment against him; this then led to legal settlements and the school shut down for 3 full days. And finally there was a mob during June of this year, wielding bats and calling for campus police to stand down as they rooted out anybody who stood in their way.
- Now I encourage you to realize, this isn’t fiction; if you do not know the events that have taken place this year in May at Evergreen State College in Olympia Washington, I would say you would either be blind willfully or unaware of your blindness to real events of direct causation of these social justice ideologies.
- This is real life.
- Also then, imagine if there was an open dialogue between our many different individualities and everybody was able to speak, everybody had the right to speak, and everybody defended people's right to speak.
CONCLUSION (action)
[I will end this speech by giving you some tips on ending the possibility of a tyrannical rule through pursuit of forced equality and diversity. We should be compassionate towards ourselves and others, love others and yourself equally. We should practice gratitude for our great international wealth and beautiful miracle that we can live the lives we do. We must resist self-sabotage, there is no disaster of systemic hate pointed right at you. We must perform acts of kindness to others who share moral values. We must forgive those who do us wrong and let it go. We must be self-confident in our identity and when others disagree with us, it is not an attack. We must realize we may or may not be in control of the world. We must stop blaming others for our suffering. To answer the final question, are feelings or facts more valid; your feelings are valid only if they are based within the parameters of reality, if they are not, and simply a fabrication of your own form of reality, take responsibility for it. Try flipping any situation around and if there is a change of opinion, ask yourself why]
Please critic
Reply
0
0
12-08-2017, 08:17 AM
#1391
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
The Illinois Supreme Court has struck down anti-free speech provisions of “stalking” and “cyber-stalking” statutes that criminalized speech that would cause a person to “suffer emotional distress.”
Writing on the Washington Post, First Amendment law expert Eugene Volokh detailed how the statutes criminalized:
The law effectively banned any form of speech “about a person” that caused a person’s feelings to be hurt.
On November 30, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the heavy-handed provisions for their unconstitutional nature, which affected speech both political and non-political.
The court concluded, in Volokh’s words, that the statute is a “content-based speech restriction, and thus presumptively unconstitutional,” adding that “The statute isn’t limited to speech that falls within the exception for true threats of illegal conduct.”
“The court therefore had no occasion to decide one of the issues argued in the case, which is whether the government may punish statements that negligently put someone in fear of being attacked by the speaker, or whether the threats exception extends only to statements that recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully put someone in fear,” writes Volokh.
According to Volokh, the court adds that the struck-down statute is “unconstitutionally overbroad,” as it “potentially covers a wide range of constitutionally protected speech,” including both political speech and non-political speech and not restricted to “one-to-one communications.”
The court stated that the law could be used to ban a person from attending town hall meetings if he complained about or advocated a boycott of a local business, which in turn caused emotional distress to the business owner.
In other words, no one would be allowed to say even potentially negative things about anyone, or anything—not even a business entity or a political party.
Reality is more absurd than the “Safe Space” episode of South Park.
Source: Washington Post.
Writing on the Washington Post, First Amendment law expert Eugene Volokh detailed how the statutes criminalized:
- “knowingly engag[ing] in [2 more or acts] directed at a specific person,”
- including “communicat[ing] to or about” a person,
- when the communicator “knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to”
- “suffer emotional distress,” defined as “significant mental suffering, anxiety or alarm.”
The law effectively banned any form of speech “about a person” that caused a person’s feelings to be hurt.
On November 30, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the heavy-handed provisions for their unconstitutional nature, which affected speech both political and non-political.
The court concluded, in Volokh’s words, that the statute is a “content-based speech restriction, and thus presumptively unconstitutional,” adding that “The statute isn’t limited to speech that falls within the exception for true threats of illegal conduct.”
“The court therefore had no occasion to decide one of the issues argued in the case, which is whether the government may punish statements that negligently put someone in fear of being attacked by the speaker, or whether the threats exception extends only to statements that recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully put someone in fear,” writes Volokh.
According to Volokh, the court adds that the struck-down statute is “unconstitutionally overbroad,” as it “potentially covers a wide range of constitutionally protected speech,” including both political speech and non-political speech and not restricted to “one-to-one communications.”
The court stated that the law could be used to ban a person from attending town hall meetings if he complained about or advocated a boycott of a local business, which in turn caused emotional distress to the business owner.
In other words, no one would be allowed to say even potentially negative things about anyone, or anything—not even a business entity or a political party.
Reality is more absurd than the “Safe Space” episode of South Park.
Source: Washington Post.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2017, 09:24 AM
#1393
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,646
Total Cats: 3,009
What a bunch of fucktards to propose and enact a law like that in the first place. How did that even pass the derp test to get enacted? That assumes of course there is anyone in Illinois legislature that would recognize derp if they saw it.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2017, 12:45 PM
#1397
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
how to college liberal:
meanwhile:
do as I do, not as I say.
The club president presented the College Republicans a flyer outlining the coffee shop’s “Safer Space Policy,” which reads:
The rules make no mention of hats.
Do not make assumptions about someone’s gender, sexuality, race, class, or experiences. Be aware of your own identity, while being considerate of the personhood of your peers. Be mindful of the ways in which your words and actions impact others. Be aware of the boundaries of other’s space, physical or otherwise, and respect their consent.
No racism – No sexism – No homophobia.
If you feel that someone has transgressed this policy, we want you to feel comfortable confronting them or approaching a member behind the counter, who is available as a resource to assist you.”
No racism – No sexism – No homophobia.
If you feel that someone has transgressed this policy, we want you to feel comfortable confronting them or approaching a member behind the counter, who is available as a resource to assist you.”
“I don’t want people like you supporting this club… no one here wants people like you supporting our club,” the woman barked. “I am giving you five minutes.”
When she was asked for an explanation, she yelled “Fascism. *****! Three minutes.”
When she was asked for an explanation, she yelled “Fascism. *****! Three minutes.”
do as I do, not as I say.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2017, 01:50 PM
#1400
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Joe must be teaching in his spare time:
An assignment titled “If You Give Hitler a Country” is creating waves of controversy after it was assigned to a language arts class at a Chicago middle school.
Eighth-grade students at the Woodland Middle School were given an assignment on Monday to create a comic strip for children that illustrated their understanding of Europe’s attempts to appease Hitler during his rise to power before World War II.
A play on the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, a concerned parent raised her issues with the school—as well as the media—after she discovered her son’s depiction of Spongebob Squarepants illustrated to look like Hitler. The image, she says, included several swastikas.
Kelly Masterson told the Chicago Daily Herald that the image shocked her. “It took me aback, obviously,” Masterton said. “Why would you give someone this assignment in this day and age?”
Masterson said that her son’s Jewish friend who asked to be excused from the assignment was allowed to produce a cartoon on a different topic.
The school district’s administrators told the paper that they are taking the matter seriously and speaking to the teachers involved in the assignment’s creation.
“We’re gathering all of the information, we’re speaking to the teachers, looking at what they were trying to teach,” said Lori Casey, the associate superintendent of education for Woodland Elementary District 50, on Wednesday. She added that it was too early to determine whether the lesson violated any policies.
The district later said that they would not be taking action against the teacher responsible, stating that they had “the best intentions.”
“The intent was not designed to be demeaning to any group of people out there,” said a district spokesperson.
The newspaper received a handout of the assignment, which features a character from the children’s cartoon My Little Pony depicted to look like Adolf Hitler, performing a salute in full **** regalia. The image was shared by several parents, including Masterson, on Facebook.
Source: Chicago Daily Herald.
Eighth-grade students at the Woodland Middle School were given an assignment on Monday to create a comic strip for children that illustrated their understanding of Europe’s attempts to appease Hitler during his rise to power before World War II.
A play on the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, a concerned parent raised her issues with the school—as well as the media—after she discovered her son’s depiction of Spongebob Squarepants illustrated to look like Hitler. The image, she says, included several swastikas.
Kelly Masterson told the Chicago Daily Herald that the image shocked her. “It took me aback, obviously,” Masterton said. “Why would you give someone this assignment in this day and age?”
Masterson said that her son’s Jewish friend who asked to be excused from the assignment was allowed to produce a cartoon on a different topic.
The school district’s administrators told the paper that they are taking the matter seriously and speaking to the teachers involved in the assignment’s creation.
“We’re gathering all of the information, we’re speaking to the teachers, looking at what they were trying to teach,” said Lori Casey, the associate superintendent of education for Woodland Elementary District 50, on Wednesday. She added that it was too early to determine whether the lesson violated any policies.
The district later said that they would not be taking action against the teacher responsible, stating that they had “the best intentions.”
“The intent was not designed to be demeaning to any group of people out there,” said a district spokesperson.
The newspaper received a handout of the assignment, which features a character from the children’s cartoon My Little Pony depicted to look like Adolf Hitler, performing a salute in full **** regalia. The image was shared by several parents, including Masterson, on Facebook.
Source: Chicago Daily Herald.
Reply
0
0
