remember that time he closed gitmo?


wasn't sure if here or darwin:

https://www.facebook.com/TrumpFanNetWork/videos/1346680118704940/

 

I'm really enjoying this recent trend of people wandering out onto the highway in protest, and then getting hit by cars.

 

​​​​​​​I just do not understand the rational with blocking highways and traffic. It just does not seem like the right way to convert people to your side.

 

Any attention is for the "cause"; likes, clicks, seconds on the news,....

 

then youll like the intro to this:

 

The University of Michigan Law School has canceled its Play-Dough event originally designed to help students cope with the trauma of the election result

 

Eh. The way I understand it is that it's a form of direct action aimed at disruption. Most effective protests have some form of that.

That said, I'm not really sure doing it in the dark was the best idea...but I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.

Not sure if getting hit by a car belongs in a generation wuss thread though. That's pretty metal.

 

 

Eh, I'm pretty liberal. There's quite a lot of brainwashing on both sides of the aisle. I think part of the blame sits with how easy it is to be in an echo chamber.

I have quite a few conservative friends, especially among the mechanics I hang out with (a few of whom are vets, some conceal carry, yada yada yada), we disagree on plenty of stuff but actually talk about it. Apparently that's uncommon these days. That fact blows my mind. There's blatant disrespect and dismissal on both sides of the aisle. It's pretty frustrating and pretty much explains why we move from one political deadlock to another...and the need to abolish the 2 party system but hey...

 

My hope is that it's not as uncommon as it seems, merely that the advent of the social-distortion amplifier tends to allow voices unwilling to face dissent to drown out the others.

 

Yeah, to be fair, in my mind the silencing of someone with views different than your own is kind of bullshit. I see colleges doing it as pandering. If you disagree, hold a forum to question the speaker, but just because you succeeded in silencing their viewpoint in your bubble doesn't mean you accomplished anything... If the speaker regularly incites violence or hate speech, then that's different. But just because you see a viewpoint as somehow offensive doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you dislike it and want to change it, might as well figure out how it works if you want to bring about any sort of meaningful conversation/debate to that.

A lot of people are so stuck in their ways that they call out the other side for being hypocrites while failing to see that their own faulty logic. You see that a lot with climate deniers claiming that it's not real science because they use models and aren't open to being wrong and are paid off yada yada yada when in reality all science works by models and they don't understand the models well enough to disagree with what they don't like. On the flip side they argue that climate change scientists have a liberal agenda, when exxon-mobil etc have been studying it for decades and paying off researchers just like phillip morris was.

It's honestly hard though. There's such a volume of information and so many terrible sources that it's hard to see what the objective reality is anymore. Not everything comes with a conflict of interest so it's hard to see what folks really want out of what they're writing/claiming.

 

shocking: black kids hate white people

Hundreds of students walk out of D.C. area schools to protest Trump | WUSA9.com







police and teachers support this truancy and lawlessness.


watch the video in the link. lol.

 

Really enjoying reading through this thread lol

 

And yet that's precisely the intent of someone who says "I'm offended." When the system works as designed, it's a conversation-ender. "Oh, you're offended by what I said? Well, I must be in the wrong then, and I apologize profusely for my insensitive behavior."

As idiotic as that may sound, it's actually becoming reality in some circles. I've come across blogs written by seemingly normal people who literally make a list of their "privileges" and post it at the top of the page. Some universities now have a formal system in place for students to register their preferred pronouns, and an administrative mechanism for handling cases in which others (be they students, faculty, or staff) fail to properly utilize them.

Obviously this only works when the offended party is of the SJW-mindset. Eg: If a feminist blogger says "I need feminism because 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male," an objective critic might reply with "Wait, did you just assume the gender of 95% of all Fortunate 500 CEOs? That's transphobic, and I'm offended by that." Obviously, such a reply will not be met gladly.

But mark my words: the time is near when private companies will institute policies like this. Don't believe me? Travel back in time to 1955 and show some average office workers a 2015-era corporate handbook.


If one compares the present day to the era of my youth, it's become much easier to find verifiable truth if you are objective about analyzing sources, and much easier to find speculative, miscontextualized, or false information which supports and reinforces existing biases if you are not. 30 years ago, you had to live near a major university library in order to have access to the vast supply of pure, legitimate truth which each of us has at our fingertips today. By the same token, you had to attend church or subscribe to badly-mimeographed newsletters to be exposed to the sheer volume of data-manipulation and outright falsehood.

 

I don't disagree with social justice stuff, in fact, I agree with a lot of it. Here's the thing. We all live in our own constructed reality, right? Our identity and what people construe as our displayed identity affects this experience. 'Checking your privilege' the way it was taught to me was to realize that the way that people saw you in the world might not reflect the experience of everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that right?

The issue I have with it is when folks go around saying that someone's experience/thoughts/identity are invalid. I.e., you're a straight white christian male, you have no right to talk. Well... so much for productive conversation...

Re: the feminism and wall street stuff. Well.... that's a weird example because the finance world is often sexist, predatory, and abusive to women. I have a lot of friends that work in finance, a few on wall street and they've seen bizarre disparities in treatment too. So your comment kinda misses that. I kinda see what you're getting at though... but I guess I'll wait for that to happen first since I'd probably just laugh at it.

I understand why folks want to have trigger warnings etc because trauma can be real for many people (often PTSD-like), but honestly if you signed up for a literature class you should damn well know that people write about things that weren't so pleasant. I don't get why those are necessary... I am not responsible for your mental health in an academic setting like this. Silencing a viewpoint doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

When I wrote about the news and information, I was thinking about the pro-trump websites out of the Balkans that were getting shared like mad with everyone taking all that **** as gospel.

Heh. We might agree more than we might have thought earlier.

 

I genuinely think that if enough people believe this, and pursue it to its natural outcome, the result is incompatible with civilization. It is an interesting metaphysical idea that when applied to reality becomes toxic.

 

 

imma quote Joe's favorite here:

 

 

We have always been at war with eastasia.

How so? Go on...

What I was saying was that folks want others to acknowledge differences in experiences/reality/perception and then basically admit that it disqualifies them and their opinion. The last part is pretty misguided.