Reply With Quote
Hard to take that look in the mirror, I suppose.
Someone gets it
Hard to take that look in the mirror, I suppose.
yeah this was making the rounds a few days ago
most of it was explaining why shillary was an awful choice, we knew that. the last minute is him bumbling about lol safe spaces and lol triggered as if that represents a big portion of liberals
Aweful choice and aweful strategy, lol deplorables. And the safe space culture is what you see protesting.
It's a decent portion of millenial liberals.
If it's not a big portion of liberals then that makes it even more of a up that the DNC has spent so much time catering to them.
I thought you meant this video:
Gotta love Ezra thinking that the America was in doomsday because they about to "almost" vote for Trump.
"THAT'S your worst-case scenario, huh?" -- Dave Chappelle.
I would love to hear everyone's personal experiences with "safe spaces" or " micro aggressions" or any of the ultra-PC travesties that are ruining the country. Please give a personal example of when you have encountered this in your life outside of reading about it. Thx
It does represent a big portion of the liberal public face. That's the face that's supposed to engage independents and try to win over people from the opposing side. Trump's a perfect example of that, with most people looking at him like he was a talking point more than a candidate. I mean, look at the vid I just posted from Ezra. It's ridiculous how huge the echo chamber is. And again, I really can't stand that conservative views or even plain old bigoted views are called "ignorant", as if the only thing preventing people from not being assholes is education.
If you mean examples of how PC culture is affecting our lives, it's rather obvious. I don't have to be an Ivy League athlete to see that it's a real thing. However, this forum is a great example of how the liberal echo chamber limits debate. You can go through any of the "issues" threads to see how people who had divergent opinions were talked down or dismissed rather than engaged with in good faith and with open minds. Not all liberal folks here did it, but a large number did, and even the ones engaging in debate were doing so assuming they'd "educate" the other side rather than actually listen to them.
I generally approve of your insight, but a word of advice, maybe stop dropping the fact that you're an Ivy League graduate. Let your takes stand on their own.
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about Harvard's soccer team and Columbia's wrestling team. I don't have to be one of those people to know that PC culture can hurt them.
the most long running "issues" threads i can recall have been based on scientific discussion though... the climate change issue has 2 separate threads here of 100+ pages. and yes, much of that is about educating. its not a pros/cons issue like gay marriage... it's what scientists (as a nearly unilateral body) say vs what non-scientists say about a scientific issue.
while not a political issue, we've also had long winded discussions about evolution/big bang, etc. its hard to have a "good faith" conversation when the other side is spamming youtubes and quite frankly has no clue what they're talking about
but when it comes to the more debateable political issues like the trasngender bathrooms, second amendment stuff, i think there's been good conversation
Hurt them... ?
Its a bunch of misguided kids who will figure it out. It's not like they are stringing up someone they don't like and then dragging them through the streets. When have older folks NOT been head-shaking at younger people (actually thinking about the big picture) and going overboard with feelings and distortions?
Wrong place wrong time has been a bigger problem than one only produced by a PC culture.
It can seem like good debate when you're on the majority side. But most of the patience is faked, and most of the language is pedagogical. And it goes back to the idea that the people taking the other side of social issues are "ignorant". There's also this prevailing notion that progressivism is like a glacier that keeps on sliding no matter how much dissenters try to stop it. That gives the progressive side a sense of, "Listen, we can argue about this as much as you want, but in the end, I'm going to be right." And in terms of video-spamming, there's a lot of that on both sides.
And this doesn't even get into people constantly crying about fallacies, as if pointing out an "ad homenim" somehow took the place of an argument. Of course, since that term was used incorrectly like 95 percent of the time, it didn't help either.
Yeah, that paternalistic at ude won't go over any better with conservatives than the pedagogical one I just talked about. I certainly don't agree with some of the things those kids were reported to have said, but that should be where it stopped. Instead, they get what they've been training for taken away by administrators trying to curry public favor. If these kids were posting articles about this or acting on any of this, that's one thing. But to be punished for what you said in private? It's absurd. But that particular stance is lost, because you're either someone who agrees with regulating hearts and minds or your have to endorse everything that those hearts and minds believe.
lol.. reading comprehension... "word of advice"... lol
Because on issues like climate change all folks here do is run out and find articles and paste them here then argue as if they've done the research themselves. Where you are personally affected by something, even if it's just an encroachment upon your morals and upbringing and sense of "ought", you have that experience and you can debate it and give or take ground from time to time and maybe be better for it. With climate change, you're just data regurgitation device. Anyone who cares to see a binary answer can look for themselves.
I think we're talking about two different things. Condescending at udes towards different opinions are what you're talking about here.
I'm talking about the supposed liberal coddling of young people's emotions and protection from offense on college campuses and elsewhere. This seems to be a phenomenon that exists almost exclusively online and has had limited impact on anyone's actual life in the real world. Certainly no more impact than, say, date rape on college campuses which you would think is less of a problem than PC culture if you were to judge by people's level of concern.
btw the video isn't epic. It's some staged rant saying a bunch of everyone already knows, but because the wanker has a accent he's more "right" suddenly than he if sounded like a NC native or someone from Jersey.
Kinda like cops shooting blacks eh? How many blacks do you know personally who were killed by cops?
So yeah, pretend it doesn't exist because your debunk by lack of anecdote is meaningful.
I'm not pretending it doesn't exist, I just want to understand everyone's personal experience with it.
Surely you wouldn't equate actual death with being triggered by someone else's triggeredness.
anyone who goes around looking for articles is doing it wrong. articles dont carry weight. peer reviewed papers do. even when an article links to a paper, the articles often misstate the actual findings, so its the original source that matters. when it comes to original peer reviewed source material, the information is largely one sided
i dont know if anybody here has ever claimed to have done the research themselves. i dont know that anybody here is a paleoclimatologist, an atmospheric physician, an oceanographer, a glaciologist, etc. i dont know that anybody here has claimed to have collected data firsthand, or crunched the numbers and published their findings.then argue as if they've done the research themselves.
you have one camp who recites what actual climate scientists publish and another camp that largely resorts to blogs/articles as there is very limited peer reviewed work. i dont think any of the people debating here claim to be the scientists doing the actual research
yes there is plenty of confirmation bias to go around. a lot of this comes from the fact that there has been a failure to separate the science from the politics.Where you are personally affected by something, even if it's just an encroachment upon your morals and upbringing and sense of "ought", you have that experience and you can debate it and give or take ground from time to time and maybe be better for it. With climate change, you're just data regurgitation device. Anyone who cares to see a binary answer can look for themselves.
This is starting to sound a lot like the "black-on-black crime" counter argument to concerns over police brutality. Certainly, there are worse problems going on. But the PC issue is still potentially an issue, especially because it can affect the ability for us to debate and come to a consensus on the other issues.
As far as echo chambers and safe places go, I think the effect has been that the regular Internet has been a safe place for liberal views, so it's given a skewed perception on what public thought is. Because the only public opinion schools like Harvard and Columbia really come into contact is coated in PC, they feel the pressure/confidence to ban teams for having "bad thoughts" essentially. In all the articles/comments I have sifted through about those incidents, the opinions are like 90 percent in favor of the regulations. I imagine an honest vote from the American people would show a much different story.
Last edited by Chinook; 11-16-2016 at 01:10 AM.
There is plenty of room to question PR articles, though. At best, they can be considered current consensus, but they get the power of fact in debates for some reason.
No, but you do get a lot of "I'm right because science" from people who probably haven't really tried to understand the science. I remember arguing with people over research papers and their power in that thread there AP was beating his kid. The article posted about corporal punishment was full of issues, and I pointed them out. The general response was, "Do your own paper or STFU", as if bad evidence is better than no evidence.i dont know if anybody here has ever claimed to have done the research themselves. i dont know that anybody here is a paleoclimatologist, an atmospheric physician, an oceanographer, a glaciologist, etc. i dont know that anybody here has claimed to have collected data firsthand, or crunched the numbers and published their findings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
