Because he's accused the general cp base of being illiterate in the past.. he continually condescends under the guise of intellectualism. And now he's trying to say that we're incapable of holding an argument or debate because we're too pc? It's just such a super weird and combative stance.
He didn't accuse anyone of being illiterate. If you don't like his tone, and think it's combative, well you're the one who just called him an idiot out of the blue, so I'm not sure who's standing on the civility high ground here.
Re-read that exchange. Peter12 made a point, his point was dismissed by Duffman as "BS" with a blatant non-sequitur, to which Peter responded by saying "case in point" and asking how dismissing people's views without an actual argument wasn't a problem, to which Duffman responded in turn by outdoing his original non-sequitur by bringing up pedophilia of all things. As someone else said, "wtf?" And you think Peter's the source of the communication problem in that exchange? That is ridiculous.
There seriously have to be some standards for talking to other people, whether it be on a campus or an internet forum, besides "does this person generally share my political ideology".
Anyway, from a week or two ago, here's yet another noted crazy right-wing spin doctor framing this as a free speech issue and admonishing university students for trying to shelter themselves from ideas that offend them or that they find disagreeable.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 03-06-2017 at 09:28 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This is the guy who gets his suits and stuff for his hotels made in other countries, right? Including the steel to make the hotel itself in Vegas?
Well, he got his so what does he care. Being a billionaire isn't as fun when there are more of them.
It's funny how 20-30 years ago, liberals were up in arms over globalization because of sweat shops, worker abuse and circumventing of human right and environmental protection in countries where labour was being outsourced to. The typical conservative response was that providing menial jobs to people in poor countries was better than providing no jobs.
Now the same people are against globalization because they apparently want those jobs back. Sorry, but that ship has sailed.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Great, another lawyer that thinks they can litigate anywhere they want to make the world comply with their ideals.
To make the world comply with my ideals? No, don't have to be mine, but when in Canada they do have to comply with the Canadian constitution which includes the Charter and freedom of expression.
At risk of getting drawn into another spat that I appear to have avoided to now, let me provide a literal 'case in point':
I do not believe most of what Mr. Pawlowski preaches but I can say that I actually have fought (and partially won) for his rights to say it.
You may need to put a bag over your head but I'm good with being known as a guy prepared to do a little volunteer work that I happen to know how to do to help a person who says free speech is being lost on university campuses.
I have kids I expect will attend a university campus one day. It is an important issue to me. So my money goes where my mouth is.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
Anyway, from a week or two ago, here's yet another noted crazy right-wing spin doctor framing this as a free speech issue and admonishing university students for trying to shelter themselves from ideas that offend them or that they find disagreeable.
Thank you for posting that clip. That should be required viewing for every high school and college student.
Because he's accused the general cp base of being illiterate in the past.. he continually condescends under the guise of intellectualism. And now he's trying to say that we're incapable of holding an argument or debate because we're too pc? It's just such a super weird and combative stance. I'm just sick of the condescending tone he takes, especially given that he's saying he's 'sick of the insults' while at the same time calling people illiterate and incapable of thought or argument. That's quite an island of impunity to find oneself
Really? I actually don't personally read into peter12's comments as condescending. Tinordi, now THAT guy's condescending.
At least peter does try to challenge others and their stances. I agree with his position and think it makes sense. If you find it condescending I can understand where you are coming from, as I just re-read it and could see how it could be interpreted that way, I just didn't personally at first.
What I would say though is that this particular thread has a way of being an echo chamber. His point about people believing that everything that they think and state is 100% right all the time, does come across in a lot of the posters here. In general, the tone is not really one of re-consideration, or an admittance to being wrong. I do agree with the premise that nobody is right about their position 100% of the time, and more importantly, many issues are complex and actually involve shades of grey. Yet many posters will pop on here and continue to defend the same positions, sticking to a politically leaning ideology like its' some kind of religion, or that they'd look bad for once leaning the other way. I won't list the posters in my mind in this context, but a couple posters who do a good job...
I think Clifffletcher does a great job of being usually balanced but overall right leaning. While rubecube is another poster who's left leaning but occasionally admits he doesn't know everything- those types of notes are refreshing to me, personally. The rest of it is largely predictable, and I think peter's point is feel free to challenge yourself. At the end of the day you may find this offensive. You may even be right depending on the context- that your position overall is the one that's well thought out.
All I'm saying is I see what he's saying, and feel free to jump out on a limb. I try to but sometimes it's hard to know what's right or wrong in certain instances and basically I am not that smart.
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 03-06-2017 at 10:20 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
I'd be curious to hear what the political climate is like at university institutions these days, and particularly from those who've experienced its evolution over the past 20 years.
I'm all for free speech (really, I'm all for it) but are there not limits to what debates a university should encourage and those it should deter?
For example, should a university invite the grand poobah of the KKK in to give a talk on white supremacy? Is there really a worthwhile debate to be had on that point? And even if there is, is it worth the likely costs of having the debate?
What about witchcraft? Or the flat earth theory? Or whether the age of the Earth is 6000 years old? Or what the greatest strengths of Freemen on the Land are? Or the truth of whatever nonsense Trump dreamed about last night and has no proof for?
Students shouldn't be wasting their time debating unreasonable nonsense that's long since been settled in the minds of any half-educated ape with a couple of brain cells to rub together. There are plenty of fun legit contemporary issues they could be spending their time on that will develop their skills and further human progress until such time as we can be replaced with intelligent machines.
Really though, I'd be very interested to hear some examples from any academics of what they're seeing in their classrooms. There have always been liberal minded people on university campuses, and there have always been conservative minded people on university campuses. And there have always been a handful of crazy people on university campuses. But I'm not sure there's ever been a time where any sizable group has so deliberately lied, manufactured, obfuscated, and denied evidence as we are seeing today. I've no idea how much of this has bled through into university classrooms, but if it's more than the usual handful of nutbars, it's going to be a problem. And as we're seeing every day in the US, it's not a problem that can be dispelled with reasonable discussion. You pretty much just have to boot the buggers out.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
I'm sure all this talk about snowflakes on college campuses is fascinating to some, but frankly it's exhausting and distracting from the very real problems occurring with regards to US Politics, so maybe we could stop arguing about whether or not people with appalling beliefs should or shouldn't be allowed to spout those appalling beliefs at young, impressionable minds? Or just move it to another thread? It's only tangentially related to American politics.
While Trump and his cronies are distracting us, by the way, Congress is having a good old time introducing some interesting legislation.
At the moment we're trying to hamstring and/or completely shutter the EPA, we're trying to steal funding from already underfunded public schools to give to private charter schools instead, trying to completely terminate the Department of Education, trying to roll back protections for endangered wildlife, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, and trying to make abortion punishable with jail time.
Oh also the FCC has set aside Obama administration regulations that would've forced ISP's like Comcast, etc to have more stringent protection on user information such as social security numbers. With all this talk about Free Speech for white supremacists, I guess we don't care so much about our personal information being protected.
Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission has voted to prevent the Internet privacy rules passed five months ago from fully taking effect.
The agency voted 2-to-1 Wednesday to temporarily stay a data security regulation within the privacy rules, passed in October 2016. That provision, which would have gone into effect Thursday, would have subjected Internet service providers (ISPs) to a different standard than web sites, apps and other Net players.
The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to enforce consumer privacy rules followed by Web sites, apps and other Net destinations. Had the FCC's data security regulation gone into effect, ISPs would have had to adopt more stringent data security requirements than companies under the FTC's regulations.
Oh also we've decided that lead poisoning is no big deal for animals (but then Flint still doesn't have clean water, so I guess this shouldn't be a surprise).
Quote:
The former Montana congressman said his new orders will allow people outside of the “land-owning elite” to participate in outdoor recreation on public lands. Pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association claim lead-free bullets are more expensive and harder to obtain than their toxic counterparts.
But the Obama administration’s ban on lead ammunition was meant to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. As many as 20 million birds and other animals die of lead poisoning each year as a result of the nearly 100,000 tons of lead that hunters, fishers and other sportsmen use, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
And I haven't yet had a chance to really go through the details of the GOP's healthcare plan, but I haven't seen much that's positive about it from any reputable sources.
So please, can we stop the incessant roundabout arguments about whether Milo and his ilk are allowed to spew falsehoods about the trans community wherever he wishes and focus on actual issues?
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
The trouble with that is that forums love a good debate, and there isn't one to be had when it comes to most of the political stories coming out of the US right now.
We're all pretty much agreed: that country is going to hell in a handbasket.
The only points of debate that flow from the news right now are: how much worse is it going to get and in what way; what should people do to stop it from happening; and do Republicans actually believe their policies are good for the US or are they actually just bad people?
On that last one, I'm leaning towards the latter, FWIW.
The Following User Says Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
To make the world comply with my ideals? No, don't have to be mine, but when in Canada they do have to comply with the Canadian constitution which includes the Charter and freedom of expression.
At risk of getting drawn into another spat that I appear to have avoided to now, let me provide a literal 'case in point':
I do not believe most of what Mr. Pawlowski preaches but I can say that I actually have fought (and partially won) for his rights to say it.
You may need to put a bag over your head but I'm good with being known as a guy prepared to do a little volunteer work that I happen to know how to do to help a person who says free speech is being lost on university campuses.
I have kids I expect will attend a university campus one day. It is an important issue to me. So my money goes where my mouth is.
I agree with everything you are saying. As an ex-pat I miss those Canadian values. But the issue is an American one (this is the American politics thread) and we have very different perspectives on free speech and education down here, as twisted as it may seem. You would think that the issue would be extremely easy to understand, based on policy and the pragmatic application of those rules. Sadly, this is America, where the almighty dollar drives everything, including the application of policy. The guys with the most money and connections win, and with dwindling enrollments and no state or federal money supporting colleges, the customer is always right. This is the new reality for those who work in education. The view of the administration, many of which are not educators but bean counters, is that faculty is easily replaced but students are gold.
I have said this many times but I wouldn't call myself a conservative.
You may try and say that, but the reality is that you are conservative through and through. Your words say so and your actions say so. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, thinks like a duck...
Quote:
As for Murray, the guy's views are pretty well within research mainstream. Anyone ever heard of James Flynn?
No, they aren't. Just because you want to toss out another name of a guy who believes much of the same theory does not mean that research is within the mainstream. Both are on the fringe because their work is considered so controversial and contrary to other studies. They both intertwine way too much philosophy into a psychological studies, which doesn't pass rigor of most IRBs these days. While interesting points of discussion for many reasons, including the ethics and efficacy of work, their work remains controversial and on the fringe of accepted theory.
Let's not derail this thread any further with this. Neither scientist is relevant to the Trump administration or the fallout of their policies. If you want to discuss the research of these two please take it to the political philosophy thread.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
You may try and say that, but the reality is that you are conservative through and through.
He's more of a reactionary. I picture him like one of those old White generals from the Russian Civil War, with a big hipster beard and huge frowning eyebrows, determined to restore the Tsar and God to the rabble whether they want them back or not.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Oh goodie, I'm sure we won't get an insane tweet over this one
Quote:
The Associated PressVerified account @AP 5h5 hours ago
BREAKING: China says will take measures against US missile system deployed in S. Korea, says US and Seoul will bear consequences.
There are going to be quite a number of surprised people who lose healthcare that they are now accustomed to having. There will also be a lot of surprised mid-western 60 year old white folks who get a rude awakening when their premiums go up significantly right out of the gate under the president they voted for. There can be a one year 30% penalty on a policy for people with pre-existing conditions that had a coverage lapse. All that does is force people out of the insurance market which is a clear win for the insurance companies. That is if the law passes which at this point I don't think it will.
All the GOP is doing is pushing things down to a state and private business level. It won't take long for people to realize the role the federal government plays and why it is necessary.
The GOP is going to start to panic soon. There is a reason people talk about the first 100 days. It is those days that you need to actually do something in order for it to take effect before the next election cycle. If they can't make tangible progress on things the people that voted for them expected and the things they do achieve are poorly thought through (like EPA elimination and various other things) they are't going to have much to run on at mid-terms.
But the dems need to get it together and hammer them and reach out to the center right republicans and start putting together their own stuff. Of course that requires center right GOP to actually have a backbone and beyond a couple female senators that backbone doesn't exist.
Trumpcare/Ryancare is not supposed to actually become law. It will never get through the Senate, and there's actually a pretty decent chance there will be enough Repubs against it (the Freedom Caucus namely who hates tax credits) that it dies in the House. When the CBO estimates come out and trash the bill, the public pressure will be immense to do nothing to Obamacare other than tweaks.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
A little reminder from China to S. Korea and the US that the people they are really dealing with in Pyongyang are the guys running the National People's Congress....
Trumpcare/Ryancare is not supposed to actually become law. It will never get through the Senate, and there's actually a pretty decent chance there will be enough Repubs against it (the Freedom Caucus namely who hates tax credits) that it dies in the House. When the CBO estimates come out and trash the bill, the public pressure will be immense to do nothing to Obamacare other than tweaks.
I agree. Which is fine by me as that will just cause more people who voted for Trump to become election bystanders next time out.
It's really too bad the dems buckled and they have the ACA rather than full single payer healthcare. Always have to chuckle that the thing people freak out about getting cut are the socialized aspects of the US system but they can't connect the dots and move forward...
The public needs to remain vocal so that it forces these buffoons to govern from the center which is how the system is set up to work. If only the politicians could get that through their head. IT's not about putting forth your ideology and winning 100% of the time...it's about putting forth your ideology and combing it with all the other viewpoints so in the end you have likely done the greater good for the bulk of the population concerned with that issue.
