PC and Muslim Agenda

[Blake]

He won't let me arrest him. Kill him!

Can't seem to get enough of the skin-deep reasoning.

Brown came at him. Keep trying, pot.

[Spurminator]

No. Those are private businesses, and their names aren't subject to a public vote. I'm pretty sure if you did a poll, most people would be against it.

These polls would suggest otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...bea_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0a9b948529c90

Most issues of political correctness aren't related to anything that can be voted on.

No idea. I saw it after, but I'm not a great person to ask about fashion or business news.

It became news when Gap apologized.

Are kids sent home for praying in school? Is that not allowed anymore?

Not very often. But occasionally a teacher or administrator will overreach on issues of religion in the school, and that's when the local news station sends a reporter. They're not reporting on examples of kids praying in school and not being punished. A school having a prayer before a football game isn't news. A school deciding not to have a prayer, or a few parents complaining about the prayer... that's what becomes news. That's what gets people leaving comments on your station website and visiting advertiser links.

Yeah, that's not true at all. Simply put, being PC has its power in siding with the majority.

Power to do what? Make people talk? Make companies apologize?

A lot of social progress has been made in this country before that progress was accepted by the majority. It's often not until changes are made that people learn to accept those changes.

Now, I agree that not everyone who is PC is militant about it. But the fact remains that PC is dominating the public discussion much more than anti-PC is. This is why Trump's anti-PC tactics are creating a groundswell of new support rather than just consolidating the old.

I would characterize Trump as being un-PC. I know that sounds like semantic acrobatics but hear me out...

How I think about it is anti-PC is when you don't think we should go to great lengths to make sure we're not profiling on race, don't think we should sanitize mascot names, don't think people should lose their if a black person is portrayed unfavorably or stereotypical in advertising, etc. You think people who are fighting for those things are PC whiners. Most polls and anecdotal examples I've seen on these kinds of subjects would suggest people are satisfied with the status quo.

Un-PC is straight up saying we should ban Muslims, or that Megyn Kelly is on her period, or suggesting that gays are pedophiles, etc. While most people might not actually say these things, I do not think most people are offended by someone saying them.

Really don't get the point of your contention. You're claiming that the media catering to anti-PC folks (which isn't true on the whole) proves that they are the majority, even though the coverage is aimed at making it seem like they are the minority?

Different media cater to different sides of the spectrum. It's a tried and true tactic to make your audience feel victimized or oppressed, and that you are the only leader speaking on their behalf in this world gone to . It's worked for centuries in churches, and it works in the media. Why do you think both liberals and conservatives complain about mainstream media bias against them?

[Chinook]

The DOJ is still assessing the situation in Irving.

How long as it been? If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?

Are you saying otherwise? Be clear about your own opinion.

Yes. Do I think the police were mostly at fault? Not really. But would Brown had survived the encounter had the cop been smarter? Yes.

[Blake]

How long as it been? If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?

They're not investigating on whether it was a bomb hoax or not, genius. They're investigating the school district for discrimination.

Feel free to ask for the facts first next time. Or you could Google them.

Yes. Do I think the police were mostly at fault? Not really. But would Brown had survived the encounter had the cop been smarter? Yes.

This tangent is irrelevant but that's fine. It could be entertaining.

What should the cop have done instead with Brown coming straight at him?

[Chinook]

These polls would suggest otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...bea_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0a9b948529c90

I stand corrected (and stand clarified on the Gap thing). I do think that shows that PC is rooted in the majority, though, as the efforts of the minority to get the name changed haven't worked. PC needs public support, especially economically, and as those 18- to 29-year-olds age and become the dominant consumers, it'll grow even faster.

Not very often. But occasionally a teacher or administrator will overreach on issues of religion in the school, and that's when the local news station sends a reporter. They're not reporting on examples of kids praying in school and not being punished. A school having a prayer before a football game isn't news. A school deciding not to have a prayer, or a few parents complaining about the prayer... that's what becomes news. That's what gets people leaving comments on your station website and visiting advertiser links.

I mean, you have a right to pray in schools, so people exercising that right shouldn't be news. Schools infringing on that right violates the First Amendment (which was designed to protect religions from the State, not the other way around as people try to claim now). I don't know what the PC thing to do is in the situation, but in ones where a person is forced to pray or isn't allowed to pray and gets punished if they don't go along with it, those also get news.

Power to do what? Make people talk? Make companies apologize?

A lot of social progress has been made in this country before that progress was accepted by the majority. It's often not until changes are made that people learn to accept those changes.

First part is that they make companies change their ways of thinking using economic threats (mainly boycotting or bad-mouthing). This isn't a new tactic, but people are much more keen to whip it out nowadays.

I would characterize Trump as being un-PC. I know that sounds like semantic acrobatics but hear me out...

I don't disagree with your assessment. But I also think Trump is getting support from people who are tired of politics being dominated on both sides by PC. When people can't separate what a guy like Aiken said and a guy like Murdoch said, you have a problem. I can never support Trump personally, or any Republican that isn't moderate, but I do find it refreshing that his campaign is so pig-headed, because he's just being explicit about things politicians have been trying to refer to elliptically.

Different media cater to different sides of the spectrum. It's a tried and true tactic to make your audience feel victimized or oppressed, and that you are the only leader speaking on their behalf in this world gone to . It's worked for centuries in churches, and it works in the media. Why do you think both liberals and conservatives complain about mainstream media bias against them?

That's a fine explanation. I don't have an issue with it. I just think it is unrelated to whether PC is a majority or a minority thing. I didn't get the idea that PC was the majority from the news. I haven't ever really watched Fox news. Despite how confrontational I am with most liberals here, I am actually on the left side of most political issues. I just hate that the "enlightened" party keep wrapping itself in emotional responses instead of trying to reason out the truth of situations.

[Chinook]

They're not investigating on whether it was a bomb hoax or not, genius.

I never said they were investigating that, did I? That they didn't evacuate the school implies that no one thought it was a bomb.

What should the cop have done instead with Brown coming straight at him?

Ironic that you ask that I check on facts one something I didn't say, yet you are of the mind that Brown ran at a cop who wasn't doing anything. How could Brown be resisting arrest if the cop wasn't trying to arrest him?

[Blake]

I never said they were investigating that, did I? That they didn't evacuate the school implies that no one thought it was a bomb.

Discrimination is the only thing they're investigating.

What is the word "it" referencing here:

"If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?"

Ironic that you ask that I check on facts one something I didn't say, yet you are of the mind that Brown ran at a cop who wasn't doing anything. How could Brown be resisting arrest if the cop wasn't trying to arrest him?

Brown came at him. That's indisputable.

The cop was trying to arrest him. That's also indisputable.

Do you think his intent all along was just to shoot him for being a thief?

You're all over the place here, not making any sense.

[Quetzal-X]

It's good you brought this up.

I don't disagree with your claims.

You wanna know why, or at least one of the reasons, it happened tho?

Because it wasn't until AFTER the fact that these White terrorists killed, raped, stole and revealed their true intentions, that the Natives tried to put up any meaningful fight, at which point it was too late. Their naïveté and blind trust bit them and their rightfully bitter descendants in the ass.

Imo it was more to do with Cortez already having prior knowledge of the natives and the culture, religion and fear. He already had the prior knowledge that the Mexica were expecting their own god (Q)to come back. Mexicas thought THEIR own Mexica god would appear like a white light of some sort. Cortez took it an ran. He knew the approximate year the Mexicas expected him. He got that nice tip-off from torturing the Tainos. Mexicas were too confused to fight their own "god". The weakness of mexicans will always be loyalty to religion.
Tainos already knew Mexica legends and religion because there was no border wall to keep the natives confined . Mexicos former president has it right he says that Trump is a false prophet. This would be the 3rd major Lie the Christian Terrorists got Mexicans to believe. 1st was White Jesus -LIE 2) Cortez convincing Mexicas he was the Mexica god 3) Trump actually conning Mexicans and Blacks to vote for someone thats HATES them.

[Quetzal-X]

Even more wicked was the biological terrorism the white christian forefathers used against the natives. Smallpox for all , babies to elderly. The damn most destructive invasive parasite is white christianity. tbmfh

[Quetzal-X]

God of the bible has something for you white christians. Better get fit as of now because its gonna be sun-up to sundown picking that cotton. God of the bible wants it that way. Thus saith the Lord.

[Pelicans78]

50%
But we have to define what "knows" means.
"Knows" does not mean approves of or condones in any way. A lot of Muslims living in the US really like it here. They may have gotten good jobs, are eating well, like the educational system and some even root for the Spurs. They would say any with terrorist ideas are nutts to try to do damage.

Back to who do they know. I'll bet they can with very reasonable accuracy say which have UnIslamic violent tendencies.

50% of Muslims in this country knows a violent Jihadist Muslim?

[ElNono]

I agree with the idea that the country is adapting and all that. But the country adapts because of the people in it. So those resisting the flow aren't just obstructing. They are trying to change the flow itself.

I think it misses the point to say, "You can say anything you want ... as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences." We know that. The problem isn't that the government is forcing people to be PC. It's that our culture is doing so, and the only way to fight it is to speak out. Is PC all bad? No. But there are cases where it limits the free transmission of information. We've seen this with clock boy, Trayvon and Brown recently where there are two different sides to the story depending on what news source you go to. That really just shouldn't be the case, especially not about potential facts or context.

Like did clock kid just keep plugging in his project despite being told by a string of teachers to stop doing so? Some sources suggest that, but the main ones don't. Are those other sources just making it up, or at the main-stream outlets just unwilling to say anything that could be construed as "victim-blaming"? We don't know, and that is a tangible issue with our nation's epistemological trajectory. We live in a nation that's too integrated and has information too easily available for us to be this ignorant of information outside of our viewpoints.

And as I've said, being PC about not "blaming victims" prevents people from giving practical advice on how to keep yourself safe in an unfair world. Too many people focused on their dreams and not enough focused on their lives.

There's excesses on pretty much everything, PC is not an outlier on that, but our culture is what it is at any given time. You adapt to the times or the times leave you behind. There's plenty of examples about cultural shifts, from, say, smoking, to music, to clothing, to everything. We do live in a world now where you can find anything you want, pretty much, as far as opinion and information. It's up to you to be critical about how you inform yourself, and what you build your opinions on.

I just don't buy there's muzzling going on, when the exact opposite is probably true, there's more access to a gradient of opinions right now than ever before (and I'm not saying that's always great).

And overall, I don't think these cultural changes bring the "destruction" of our society or anything close to that, tbh. There might be pro and cons, but there's ample room to debate that.

[mingus]

I put cops at a higher standard for recognizing a bomb vs a clock than that.

And I'm pretty sure he/they did. But you can recognize, or learn, that it isn't a bomb, and still think cosmetically that it looks like one. That opens up the floodgates for further questioning. And I'm fine with that. Too many kids/people have died due to people being scared of asking questions & throughly investigating things which on their face may be incon uous or innocuous, for fear of offending people. It's alright to be offensive sometimes.

[Blake]

But you can recognize, or learn, that it isn't a bomb, and still think cosmetically that it looks like one.

"This is what happens when we (IPD) screw something up," wrote senior IPD*detective Rodney Bergeron* in a September 17 email to another officer. "That thing didn't even look like a bomb. And now, the kid is being made into a hero."

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texa...ng-6620429.php

[Chinook]

Discrimination is the only thing they're investigating.

What is the word "it" referencing here:

"If it were as obvious as you thought, wouldn't it have been an open-and-shut case?"

The situation. You consider this to be an obvious example of discrimination, going so far as to say 'What else could it be?' That there has been no ruling on that means it's not obvious. There's really no way you can spin this while also relying on an arbiter's review in the Brown case.

Brown came at him. That's indisputable.

Was the cop following appropriate procedure when that happened?

The cop was trying to arrest him. That's also indisputable.

Or here?

Do you think his intent all along was just to shoot him for being a thief?

Doubt it. Nothing I have said suggested I had. However...

You're all over the place here, not making any sense.

It's clear you at least display the reading comprehension of a thimble in most of your ST disputes. I think that has a ton more to do with you only looking to confirm your beliefs than it does with your actually reading ability, but the fact remains that you repeatedly miss the point of my comparison.

I brought Brown up as an example of how mainstream news leaves out critical facts to make the scenarios more palatable for their audience. For Brown and clock boy, the new either did or may have left out things that would be seen as minority-bashing or victim-blaming, both non-PC things. For a group that calls themselves progressives, this is unacceptable. The "more enlightened" party cannot be so intellectually dishonest.

[Chinook]

There's excesses on pretty much everything, PC is not an outlier on that, but our culture is what it is at any given time. You adapt to the times or the times leave you behind. There's plenty of examples about cultural shifts, from, say, smoking, to music, to clothing, to everything. We do live in a world now where you can find anything you want, pretty much, as far as opinion and information. It's up to you to be critical about how you inform yourself, and what you build your opinions on.

But the "changing of the times" isn't a movement independent of individuals. It's the gestalt of our collective opinions and actions, and the more people who stand against the current movements, the more dirigible those movements become. That's how almost all social or cultural change happens, including this current PC movement. If we can get to a point where PC is the standard but people are fully aware of its limitations, then the fighting was worth it. It's in fact good for any movement for it to be opposed vehemently, so it can be honed and refined.

I just don't buy there's muzzling going on, when the exact opposite is probably true, there's more access to a gradient of opinions right now than ever before (and I'm not saying that's always great).

Eh, I disagree on that. I think when controlling for how accessible information is, we are as shut as we've ever been. This is what Obama was talking about not too long ago:

And overall, I don't think these cultural changes bring the "destruction" of our society or anything close to that, tbh. There might be pro and cons, but there's ample room to debate that.

I think there has been a fundamental shift in the progressive movement over the past few years. Before, it was about expanding negative and basic positive rights for multiple classes. And that's still the case with LGBT people. But now that we've pretty much secured those rights for everyone, we are looking at limiting rights so that people aren't offended. This is a complete turn from the previous speech movements where it was expanding people's rights to be offensive.

It's like it's crossed some line and forced liberals and conservatives to swap roles. So it's trajectory is concerning, as it's now unpredictable. If progressives are going to be the ones limiting rights in order to protect sensitivities while conservatives don't really want to expand rights, when where is right's theory headed?

[boutons_deux]

"conservatives don't really want to expand rights"

WTF?

Repugs expand

the right-to-work-for-less,

right to discriminate against and express hate of LGBT,

right of BigCorp to pollute.

protect the rights of BigCorp and esp BigFinance to screw everybody

conservatives don't really want to expand rights???

[Blake]

The situation. You consider this to be an obvious example of discrimination, going so far as to say 'What else could it be?' That there has been no ruling on that means it's not obvious. There's really no way you can spin this while also relying on an arbiter's review in the Brown case.

I never said the discrimination was obvious. I said it was obviously not a bomb.
You're having trouble keeping up here and are all over the place.

Was the cop following appropriate procedure when that happened?



Or here?

He was found to be acting in self defense. I don't see any procedure he failed to follow. Do you?

Ferguson incident still irrelevant to Irving.

It's clear you at least display the reading comprehension of a thimble in most of your ST disputes. I think that has a ton more to do with you only looking to confirm your beliefs than it does with your actually reading ability, but the fact remains that you repeatedly miss the point of my comparison.

I brought Brown up as an example of how mainstream news leaves out critical facts to make the scenarios more palatable for their audience. For Brown and clock boy, the new either did or may have left out things that would be seen as minority-bashing or victim-blaming, both non-PC things. For a group that calls themselves progressives, this is unacceptable. The "more enlightened" party cannot be so intellectually dishonest.

I don't care about your sidebar rant on mainstream media. It's an irrelevant point to whether Irving police/school went overboard.

The facts are out there to find without msm's help. Go look up the facts, get them straight and then let's discuss.

[mingus]

"This is what happens when we (IPD) screw something up," wrote senior IPD*detective Rodney Bergeron* in a September 17 email to another officer. "That thing didn't even look like a bomb. And now, the kid is being made into a hero."

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texa...ng-6620429.php

Yeah, it prolly doesn't. I don't know. But it looks like a briefcase bomb prop.

Which is why you never answered my question a few posts ago. The general populace I'd imagine wouldn't bat an eye at it if it showed up on a movie set.

[Chinook]

I never said the discrimination was obvious. I said it was obviously not a bomb.
You're having trouble keeping up here and are all over the place.

If you're not going to blame prejudice, then what are you going to blame?

Right but he got arrested any way.

Pretty clear why. And some are ok with treating people unfairly like that.

You gonna keep trying to dance in circles?

He was found to be acting in self defense. I don't see any procedure he failed to follow. Do you?

Yes. And I've already stated those. He didn't murder the guy. That doesn't mean that his actions didn't lead to that confrontation. Same with Zimmerman.

Ferguson incident still irrelevant to Irving.

Thimbling again.

I don't care about your sidebar rant on mainstream media. It's an irrelevant point to whether Irving police/school went overboard.

The facts are out there to find without msm's help. Go look up the facts, get them straight and then let's discuss.

When the entire point of the argument is that the facts aren't being readily presented by the media, your "Go Google it" retort is idiotic and misplaced. Again, you've shown no ability to at least willingness to have a legitimate discussion. You try to act clever, and when that doesn't work, you shut down. You don't want to have a talk about PC and media bias? Well, then don't. That was my point, and you've done nothing to dispute it, because you don't even seem to disagree with it. My only question is if you understand that and are just stirring up or if you really don't understand and you think you have a side to argue.

[Blake]

Yeah, it prolly doesn't. I don't know. But it looks like a briefcase bomb prop.

Which is why you never answered my question a few posts ago. The general populace I'd imagine wouldn't bat an eye at it if it showed up on a movie set.

Well yeah, I guess I could be convinced as a movie watcher. The general populace would probably buy it in a movie too because suitcase bombs in movies with clocks are common.

Cops need to and have to be better than that.

And in real life to me, it looks like just a clock.

[Quetzal-X]

perhaps 'murikkkans watch too much Hollywood and TV .

[Blake]

You gonna keep trying to dance in circles?

Ah, ok. It's cir stantially obvious in my opinion. It's not obvious to prove though. Kind of like how we all know OJ did it.

But I'm asking your opinion. If it's obviously not a bomb, he never tried to pretend it was one, why do you think he was arrested?

Yes. And I've already stated those. He didn't murder the guy. That doesn't mean that his actions didn't lead to that confrontation. Same with Zimmerman.

The ol "I've already stated".

Somewhere in a huge block of text, I'm guessing.

When the entire point of the argument is that the facts aren't being readily presented by the media, your "Go Google it" retort is idiotic and misplaced.

Nobody is arguing against your media point. I don't give a about the media bias here.

I just want to know if Irving is a town full of discriminating assholes or not. The mainstream media is an irrelevant tangent you're trying to force here.

Again, you've shown no ability to at least willingness to have a legitimate discussion. You try to act clever, and when that doesn't work, you shut down. You don't want to have a talk about PC and media bias? Well, then don't. That was my point, and you've done nothing to dispute it, because you don't even seem to disagree with it. My only question is if you understand that and are just stirring up or if you really don't understand and you think you have a side to argue.

Says dude that goes ad hominem almost out of the gate.

Go yourself, pot.

[Chinook]

Ah, ok. It's cir stantially obvious in my opinion. It's not obvious to prove though. Kind of like how we all know OJ did it.

Courts seem very eager to prove it recently. After all this time, if they still aren't sure, it clearly isn't just because they're thinking it over.

But I'm asking your opinion. If it's obviously not a bomb, he never tried to pretend it was one, why do you think he was arrested?

We don't know what he tried to do. We do know that his only answer was, "It's a clock." By itself, that statement is unhelpful. It only made sense to answer that way once, and after that, every time he repeated it was stupid.

What is that? -- It's a clock. -- Well, put it away. -- It's a clock. -- And why do you keep plugging it in? -- It's a clock. -- Why did you even bring it anyway? It's not part of a school project. -- It's a clock. -- Ahmed, why do you keep doing stuff like this? We've asked you to stop whipping out beeping suit cases in class. -- It's a clock. -- Do we have to call the police in? Your dad threatened to sue us if we confiscated your property. -- It's a clock. -- I'm calling them.

That's all speculation, for sure. It was hopefully not that silly. It may have been worse, though. In any event, everything I read suggested the kid showed poor judgment in the situation. I don't know if he went into this with fully open eyes, but there's no way I look at that situation and not warn my kids against bringing like that to school or against them cooperating with authorities on what should be trivial matters. That is a much bigger concern to me than railing against discrimination. Obviously, you want to do both, but keeping my kids safe is the first priority.

The ol "I've already stated".

Somewhere in a huge block of text, I'm guessing.

I just don't get why you can be so flippant about reading. You're an adult.

Nobody is arguing against your media point. I don't give a about the media bias here.

I just want to know if Irving is a town full of discriminating assholes or not. The mainstream media is an irrelevant tangent you're trying to force here.

This whole thread is about media bias. You're the one trying to make it about tangents. Does PC prevent people from examining Muslims with proper scrutiny? I think it prevents a lot of important questions from being asked. Clock boy was one of the examples I brought up. Brown was another. I don't agree with the idea that PC is allowing US culture to be infringed upon by Muslims, as the article proposed. But I think facts are getting obscured.

You, with your ever-present desire for the explanations of every situation to fit on a post-it note, jumped immediately to trying to debate the events in both examples rather than the topical point of PC's potential effect on the coverage. If you want to do that, that's fine. But that's not really relevant.

Says dude that goes ad hominem almost out of the gate.

I have yet to use an ad homenim on you. That term has been explained to you too many times for you to keep misunderstanding it.

[Blake]

Courts seem very eager to prove it recently. After all this time, if they still aren't sure, it clearly isn't just because they're thinking it over.

What "court" is out to prove it?

The Department of Justice is still investigating on whether there is enough concrete evidence to move for prosecution.

Do you understand how DOJ investigations work? Or our legal system in general?

I have yet to use an ad homenim on you. That term has been explained to you too many times for you to keep misunderstanding it.

Right, because me being pseudo intellectual is just you stating the facts!

You're an arrogant prick. That's a fact, no ad hominem.