General US Politics

[blah the Prussian]

There was a large Muslim community in Michigan that made an honest attempt at implementing Sharia some years ago. They obviously failed, but it seems like religion comes before state for them. I attempt to be politically correct when the facts are not in my favor, but when church and state mix, that's where I draw the line.

Well yeah. They failed; there's no danger. In the US at least, as well as in many European countries, separation of church and state is in the Constitution, so the danger is positively minuscule.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm not sure what it is you're asking me not to do.

My previous post clearly indicates that "mutual respect", presumably held between two or more parties exhibiting tact, politeness, and so on, is how to best approach a discussion. I've certainly intended to do that here.

But political correctness isn't about respect, and it isn't about tact or politeness either. It is at best about denying facts that are perceived by some as offensive, and at worst is a deliberate attempt at creating a false narrative. The populist, right-leaning rejection of political correctness could be described as the bubbling up of frustrations from people that are sick and tired of being called racist for noticing problems with the media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case (for instance). They're tired of being called Islamophobic for fearing the spread of Sharia. They're tired of being called sexist for seeing through the wage gap myth. They're tired of being called transphobic for agreeing with the overwhelming majority opinion concerning restrooms and locker rooms. The politically correct guilt mongers have no end to the name-calling, and finally this has led to a coalescing of a reactionary political force. Donald Trump may very well win on the strength of this collective anger.

political correctness is entirely about respect. it's about calling someone with asperger's neurodivergent over retarded, or avoiding racial epithets, granting rights to those who are disadvantaged, etc.

the fear of sharia spreading in the united states, or anywhere that isn't already heavily influenced by islam, is about as sound as believing that aliens have made contact with us.

sounds to me like they're tired of not being able to discriminate against the people they want to discriminate. an "overwhelming majority opinion" doesn't imply correctness, but you want it to. because you don't think that trans people are who they feel like they are. there used to be an overwhelming majority opinion that blacks were inferior to whites and because of that segregation was necessary.

conservatives are afraid of progress, basically by definition, but we should allow those minority groups who deserve respect and the full legal privileges we enjoy to have it too.

[tuvarkz]

Well yeah. They failed; there's no danger. In the US at least, as well as in many European countries, separation of church and state is in the Constitution, so the danger is positively minuscule.

Except that sharia patrols have happened before and are also happening these days

political correctness is entirely about respect. it's about calling someone with asperger's neurodivergent over retarded, or avoiding racial epithets, granting rights to those who are disadvantaged, etc.

the fear of sharia spreading in the united states, or anywhere that isn't already heavily influenced by islam, is about as sound as believing that aliens have made contact with us.

sounds to me like they're tired of not being able to discriminate against the people they want to discriminate. an "overwhelming majority opinion" doesn't imply correctness, but you want it to. because you don't think that trans people are who they feel like they are. there used to be an overwhelming majority opinion that blacks were inferior to whites and because of that segregation was necessary.

conservatives are afraid of progress, basically by definition, but we should allow those minority groups who deserve respect and the full legal privileges we enjoy to have it too.

Minorities in the US and other first world countries have the same legal rights as the alleged white male dominant group. Regarding transgenderism and racial discrimination, there's a very clear difference. Given the irrefutable proof of Mendel's third law (Independent Assortment for clarity, since apparently english sites seem to be writing Dominance as the third law), we know for fact that one's skin color has nothing to do with one's intellect. While yes, we have the necessary (but not sufficient) proof that microchimerism can happen at the level of the brain; there is no proper experiment to prove that self-claimed transgenders are in majority people with brains/hormonal systems that don't have the same 23rd chromosome pair as the rest of their body (Which would be a sufficient condition); and people are very much capable of being self-delusional or otherwise. While I don't have a personal stance regarding transgenderism and are only awaiting for conclusive proof of either possibility, it's a large stretch to compare the transgender issue with racism.

Edited June 25, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Duff Ostrich]

political correctness is entirely about respect. it's about calling someone with asperger's neurodivergent over retarded, or avoiding racial epithets, granting rights to those who are disadvantaged, etc.

I'll give evidence for my case by way of example:

The politically correct, socially acceptable opinion was that Trayvon the skittle master was peacefully minding his own business before the racist white bully George Zimmerman shot him dead for no reason. Barry Obama likened Martin to the son he never had, and in so doing inserted his administration into a discussion where it didn't belong.

So where is the truth in this? Well, for one thing the picture used of Martin in virtually every media outlet was five years too old. Martin was taller and much more athletic than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a squat doughboy, and perhaps far more importantly, Zimmerman was not white. He was hispanic, or a "white hispanic" and the specifics of his race became a part of the national discussion. Why is that? Why would his race matter, if it was not being used to forward some kind of fiction? In this age of identitarian politics, you'd think the media would have simply accepted that Zimmerman was hispanic (if they bothered to address race at all) since that's how he identifies. You'd also think they'd not try to paint the man as a cold blooded killer considering that Martin beat Zimmerman bloody before he was shot.

Filter through the dogma, the buzzwords, and the outright lies, and it becomes obvious that there is no epidemic of white-on-black crime. There are indeed so few legitimate examples that our media is willing to make people like George Zimmerman honorary white men if it furthers their preferred narrative. The truth, however politically incorrect it may be to say so, is that blacks victimize other blacks with staggering frequency.

Did black lives matter to #blacklivesmatter when Ferguson protestors victimized their innocent (black) neighbors by burning their businesses to the ground? Evidently not, and yet the so long as it is politically incorrect to call these people on their hypocrisy we will never solve the problems plaguing our racially divided inner cities. That is why political correctness is a poison.

[blah the Prussian]

Except that sharia patrols have happened before and are also happening these days

Well, are they legal? Are people under any obligation to listen to them? I mean sure you could get beaten up, but that's against the law. I see no problem with the law here. And there's no way that those "Sharia zones" are legally binding.

[tuvarkz]

Well, are they legal? Are people under any obligation to listen to them? I mean sure you could get beaten up, but that's against the law. I see no problem with the law here. And there's no way that those "Sharia zones" are legally binding.

Yet the police is proving to often be unefficient at enforcing the law in these kind of situations. The law doesn't protect people if it isn't enforced.

[blah the Prussian]

Yet the police is proving to often be unefficient at enforcing the law in these kind of situations. The law doesn't protect people if it isn't enforced.

Then the problem is with how the law is enforced, not the law itself. It's a problem obviously, but the danger is hardly pressing.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'll give evidence for my case by way of example:

The politically correct, socially acceptable opinion was that Trayvon the skittle master was peacefully minding his own business before the racist white bully George Zimmerman shot him dead for no reason. Barry Obama likened Martin to the son he never had, and in so doing inserted his administration into a discussion where it didn't belong.

So where is the truth in this? Well, for one thing the picture used of Martin in virtually every media outlet was five years too old. Martin was taller and much more athletic than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a squat doughboy, and perhaps far more importantly, Zimmerman was not white. He was hispanic, or a "white hispanic" and the specifics of his race became a part of the national discussion. Why is that? Why would his race matter, if it was not being used to forward some kind of fiction? In this age of identitarian politics, you'd think the media would have simply accepted that Zimmerman was hispanic (if they bothered to address race at all) since that's how he identifies. You'd also think they'd not try to paint the man as a cold blooded killer considering that Martin beat Zimmerman bloody before he was shot.

Filter through the dogma, the buzzwords, and the outright lies, and it becomes obvious that there is no epidemic of white-on-black crime. There are indeed so few legitimate examples that our media is willing to make people like George Zimmerman honorary white men if it furthers their preferred narrative. The truth, however politically incorrect it may be to say so, is that blacks victimize other blacks with staggering frequency.

Did black lives matter to #blacklivesmatter when Ferguson protestors victimized their innocent (black) neighbors by burning their businesses to the ground? Evidently not, and yet the so long as it is politically incorrect to call these people on their hypocrisy we will never solve the problems plaguing our racially divided inner cities. That is why political correctness is a poison.

i'm confused what you think the narrative is. there is still considerable white-on-black and black-on-white crime, though statistically speaking criminals are more likely to harm their own race.

the narrative nowadays is not that whites physically harm blacks without reprimand--it is that minority groups of many types are disadvantaged in daily life. rather than sit here and give a lecture, it's much easier to ask, is this fact evident to you? do whites get off considerably easier than blacks in court sentences? are whites underrepresented in stem fields? are whites underrepresented in political positions of power? you are mistaken in your interpretation of the narrative, and desperately clutching to the martin case and citing media bias is odd, especially if we consider the role it has played over the course of the recent primary elections. the media is indeed biased, does not have all the answers, etc. and of course this is news to no one.

Yet the police is proving to often be unefficient at enforcing the law in these kind of situations. The law doesn't protect people if it isn't enforced.

the police aren't even proving to be inefficient, just complacent.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Duff Ostrich]

i'm confused what you think the narrative is. there is still considerable white-on-black and black-on-white crime, though statistically speaking criminals are more likely to harm their own race.

the narrative nowadays is not that whites physically harm blacks without reprimand--it is that minority groups of many types are disadvantaged in daily life. rather than sit here and give a lecture, it's much easier to ask, is this fact evident to you? do whites get off considerably easier than blacks in court sentences? are white underrepresented in stem fields? are whites underrepresented in political positions of power? you are mistaken in your interpretation of the narrative, and desperately clutching to the martin case and citing media bias is laughable, especially if we consider the bias it has played over the course of primary elections. the media is indeed biased, does not have all the answers, etc. and of course this is news to no one.

You're losing focus. I've given you evidence that a story has been deliberately misrepresented and that facts were either ignored or simply changed to fit the preferred narrative. That George Zimmerman is "white" isn't actually correct, but for the purposes of the race-baiters it is politically correct. The lie serves a purpose, which is a maintenance of an even larger lie. From the Black Lives Matter website:

#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.

The larger lie being that black Americans are victim to "virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society." by the patriarchal white power structure. On their lovely website BLM uses words like "genocide", "state violence", and "Darwinian experiments" to describe the black experience. They are simply unable to support this with facts, and so they invent them as needed.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist and as such I do not think that the media is totally in on this farce, or at least not for the same reasons. Rather, they realize that a black on black crime barely generates any facebook or twitter buzz, but a white on black crime makes them untold millions in social media money. They are the profiteers of misinformation, and that goes well beyond simple "bias".

This is one of dozens of examples of politically correct untruths that serve to prop up the prevailing zeitgeist, but we now have a powerful voting bloc that is fighting against this by campaigning for someone not at all beholden to PC culture.

[blah the Prussian]

are whites underrepresented in stem fields?

What's so special about STEM? I think we need to get more minority groups, especially women, into history. No personal motivation here at all, no sir.

More seriously, the Zimmerman case always seemed to me to be more of an indictment of vigilantism. It shows how human imperfections, like racism (and I do believe it was racism) make individual humans unworthy of taking the law into their own hands. Also, Duff, I have to ask, why was it wrong for Obama to voice his opinion on the matter? He's allowed to have his opinion.

[Phoenix Wright]

You're losing focus. I've given you evidence that a story has been deliberately misrepresented and that facts were either ignored or simply changed to fit the preferred narrative. That George Zimmerman is "white" isn't actually correct, but for the purposes of the race-baiters it is politically correct. The lie serves a purpose, which is a maintenance of an even larger lie. From the Black Lives Matter website:

The larger lie being that black Americans are victim to "virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society." by the patriarchal white power structure. On their lovely website BLM uses words like "genocide", "state violence", and "Darwinian experiments" to describe the black experience. They are simply unable to support this with facts, and so they invent them as needed.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist and as such I do not think that the media is totally in on this farce, or at least not for the same reasons. Rather, they realize that a black on black crime barely generates any facebook or twitter buzz, but a white on black crime makes them untold millions in social media money. They are the profiteers of misinformation, and that goes well beyond simple "bias".

This is one of dozens of examples of politically correct untruths that serve to prop up the prevailing zeitgeist, but we now have a powerful voting bloc that is fighting against this by campaigning for someone not at all beholden to PC culture.

the media does a poor job with every public court case or tragedy. martin, m.j, o.j, and more recent tragedies. it's a natural consequence of the industry being run by humans. but, i am unsure why we're assigning malice to blm, seeing as they're not exactly wrong. martin case notwithstanding, do you deny that blacks have faced quite a violent past of racism which historically speaking was not very long ago? the united states has a tough time admitting its genocides, but we've committed them and other atrocities. do you deny that blacks have faced state-sanctioned violence, been the subjects of inhumane experiments, etc because they are black?

so again i ask, because we know that the media isn't necessarily reliable, when looking at the state of minorities in this nation, is institutionalized racism not evident? one wonders what it is you're actually arguing against, because i wouldn't say i am losing focus at all.

What's so special about STEM? I think we need to get more minority groups, especially women, into history. No personal motivation here at all, no sir.

More seriously, the Zimmerman case always seemed to me to be more of an indictment of vigilantism. It shows how human imperfections, like racism (and I do believe it was racism) make individual humans unworthy of taking the law into their own hands. Also, Duff, I have to ask, why was it wrong for Obama to voice his opinion on the matter? He's allowed to have his opinion.

stem is particularly terrible for nonwhite people. also, i was not aware that women were lacking in history! but of course, i support much greater diversity than what most fields have now.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[tuvarkz]

the media does a poor job with every public court case or tragedy. martin, m.j, o.j, and more recent tragedies. it's a natural consequence of the industry being run by humans. but, i am unsure why we're assigning malice to blm, seeing as they're not exactly wrong. martin case notwithstanding, do you deny that blacks have faced quite a violent past of racism which historically speaking was not very long ago? the united states has a tough time admitting its genocides, but we've committed them and other atrocities. do you deny that blacks have faced state-sanctioned violence, been the subjects of inhumane experiments, etc because they are black?

so again i ask, because we know that the media isn't necessarily reliable, when looking at the state of minorities in this nation, is institutionalized racism not evident? one wonders what it is you're actually arguing against, because i wouldn't say i am losing focus at all.

stem is particularly terrible for nonwhite people. also, i was not aware that women were lacking in history! but of course, i support much greater diversity than what most fields have now.

"Institutionalized racism" I hear this spewed over and over, yet I do not see a currently valid law that discriminates people solely based on the color of their skin. Yes, racism was a part of the US's past, but it's over now. Yes, the black communities of the US are in a bad place, but it's just as much due to the gang culture that has rooted itself in it, to the point where I believe social engineering may be the only way out, as unethical as it may be to do so.

Also, to hell with representation. The people hired for jobs should be those with the most capability, not filling a gender/race quota 'because it's the current year'. Choosing people for their gender/race/religion rather for their capability at a given job is discrimination. Equality of opportunity will never mean equality of outcome, particularly given the inherent uniqueness of each person and individual conditions and situations. This madness has even reached the army where women are being given lower requirements than males, making them weaker soldiers; and science has proven that men have, on average, far better physical capabilities than women.

[Crysta]

Yes, racism was a part of the US's past, but it's over now.

My Florida family reunions tell me you're wrong.

The law can say what it wants; the people who enforce it aren't infallible. This is pretty damn naive.

I think my problem with the latest study on women in the army was because they were being held to lower standards and they were acting like the conclusion was some kind of startling revelation when it was revealed that, gasp, they performed worse on the tests. Physically men > women, but skilled lady snipers are a known thing, so it's not like they can't have a place on the field regardless. There's one camp that seems to be in favor of different standards and one camp that thinks the same standards should apply to everyone even if it means less women make the cut - I'm of the latter camp.

But if you refuse to consider enlisting someone who makes the cut just because they have a pair of x chromosomes, you're the one with the problem.

EDIT: I mean people who lived in the 1950's (when segregation was a thing) are STILL ALIVE lmao

Edited June 26, 2016 by Crysta

[Alertcircuit]

"Institutionalized racism" I hear this spewed over and over, yet I do not see a currently valid law that discriminates people solely based on the color of their skin.

The whole war on drugs was started to target black people so Nixon would have an easier time getting re-elected. Also, black men serve 19.5% longer sentences than white men for similar crimes. There's definitely something there.

IMO women should be able to serve as long as they meet the same standards that men do. The same goes to every job. Merit > Representation.

[Lord Raven]

for anyone who doesn't believe that claim above... hear it from the mouth of the devil's advocate himself

[tuvarkz]

The whole war on drugs was started to target black people so Nixon would have an easier time getting re-elected. Also, black men serve 19.5% longer sentences than white men for similar crimes. There's definitely something there.

IMO women should be able to serve as long as they meet the same standards that men do. The same goes to every job. Merit > Representation.

Studies show an even wider gap between men and women as well. None of this is written in law, though; and a lot is left up to each judge's discretion. I've seen the study does take plea bargains, although I wonder whether it takes repeated breaking of the law into account (It would seem the law is lenient on first time criminals). Also I wonder if the strictness of each judge was taken into account as well (Judges from places with different white-to-black population ratios being individually more lenient or more severe could alter the result as well).

[Crysta]

Does a fair law really do any justice if it's not upheld consistently and without prejudice? What's the point? This sounds like it's deliberately ignoring the problem.

[Moblin Major General]

Does a fair law really do any justice if it's not upheld consistently and without prejudice? What's the point? This sounds like it's deliberately ignoring the problem.

Maybe it is, but prejudice and bias will never go away, meaning that the law can never be as blind as it claims. All you can do is ignore it and obey the law, because trying to fix the problem gets people killed, changing nothing.

[blah the Prussian]

Maybe it is, but prejudice and bias will never go away, meaning that the law can never be as blind as it claims. All you can do is ignore it and obey the law, because trying to fix the problem gets people killed, changing nothing.

...or the law can actually be obeyed? The enforcers of the law do need massive reforms. Change must come from above, but it can come.

[Phoenix Wright]

"Institutionalized racism" I hear this spewed over and over, yet I do not see a currently valid law that discriminates people solely based on the color of their skin. Yes, racism was a part of the US's past, but it's over now. Yes, the black communities of the US are in a bad place, but it's just as much due to the gang culture that has rooted itself in it, to the point where I believe social engineering may be the only way out, as unethical as it may be to do so.

Also, to hell with representation. The people hired for jobs should be those with the most capability, not filling a gender/race quota 'because it's the current year'. Choosing people for their gender/race/religion rather for their capability at a given job is discrimination.

institutionalized racism isn't bound to law. it also includes de facto practices that are observed throughout the united states. racism is not over lol. respectfully, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to life in the hood.

all things equal, a white man is typically the most likely to be hired.

[Tryhard]

all things equal, a white man is typically the most likely to be hired.

hey now, you need to be politically correct before you say things like that

I'm holding out for him meaning segregation was a part of the US's past, hopefully.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Tryhard

[Hyoudou Issei]

All things said and done... as crazy as it sounds, I would prefer Trump to Hilary. I politically identify mostly as libertarian constitutionalist, and in terms of that.. a lot of things is pick your poison this time around. That said... what it comes down to for me is that trump has faced a lot of the accusations thrown at him head on, so far, Hilary has really done nothing other than hide behind the "woman" card, I wouldn't mind so much if the list of things she still has yet to answer for wasn't so damn long.

Not to mention, when you decide to stop watching the abridged news versions of Trumps speeches and such, he stops sounding 'racist', and starts sounding more nationalist. Heck... even a lot of his more 'outrageous' quotes are actually rather reasonable.

"Wants to deport millions of people."

When you consider these potential millions are illegal immigrants, and if you've read up on the justice system, and what happens should one of these millions commit a crime, this one tends to make a lot more sense. Bearing in mind that it changes a few things up when it comes to criminal procedure (Notably, the right to bail, as well as having to call the home country for diplomatic reasons as well as identification) , there's also the fact that a lot of constitutional amendments do not apply due to lack of citizenship, as well as the court would have little to no idea of the defendant's past misdemeanors.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Hyoudou Issei

[eclipse]

I'm not sure what it is you're asking me not to do.

My previous post clearly indicates that "mutual respect", presumably held between two or more parties exhibiting tact, politeness, and so on, is how to best approach a discussion. I've certainly intended to do that here.

But political correctness isn't about respect, and it isn't about tact or politeness either. It is at best about denying facts that are perceived by some as offensive, and at worst is a deliberate attempt at creating a false narrative. The populist, right-leaning rejection of political correctness could be described as the bubbling up of frustrations from people that are sick and tired of being called racist for noticing problems with the media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case (for instance). They're tired of being called Islamophobic for fearing the spread of Sharia. They're tired of being called sexist for seeing through the wage gap myth. They're tired of being called transphobic for agreeing with the overwhelming majority opinion concerning restrooms and locker rooms. The politically correct guilt mongers have no end to the name-calling, and finally this has led to a coalescing of a reactionary political force. Donald Trump may very well win on the strength of this collective anger.

Now that I'm not busy. . .and you later made a post with an example, I'll dissect it.

I'll give evidence for my case by way of example:

The politically correct, socially acceptable opinion was that Trayvon the skittle master was peacefully minding his own business before the racist white bully George Zimmerman shot him dead for no reason. Barry Obama likened Martin to the son he never had, and in so doing inserted his administration into a discussion where it didn't belong.

So where is the truth in this? Well, for one thing the picture used of Martin in virtually every media outlet was five years too old. Martin was taller and much more athletic than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a squat doughboy, and perhaps far more importantly, Zimmerman was not white. He was hispanic, or a "white hispanic" and the specifics of his race became a part of the national discussion. Why is that? Why would his race matter, if it was not being used to forward some kind of fiction? In this age of identitarian politics, you'd think the media would have simply accepted that Zimmerman was hispanic (if they bothered to address race at all) since that's how he identifies. You'd also think they'd not try to paint the man as a cold blooded killer considering that Martin beat Zimmerman bloody before he was shot.

Filter through the dogma, the buzzwords, and the outright lies, and it becomes obvious that there is no epidemic of white-on-black crime. There are indeed so few legitimate examples that our media is willing to make people like George Zimmerman honorary white men if it furthers their preferred narrative. The truth, however politically incorrect it may be to say so, is that blacks victimize other blacks with staggering frequency.

Did black lives matter to #blacklivesmatter when Ferguson protestors victimized their innocent (black) neighbors by burning their businesses to the ground? Evidently not, and yet the so long as it is politically incorrect to call these people on their hypocrisy we will never solve the problems plaguing our racially divided inner cities. That is why political correctness is a poison.

My opinion of the Martin case is that the people reacting to it were over-the-top, and should not be so hasty to judge the situation. Furthermore, the press should be held partially responsible for the riot - if they want to influence people (instead of being a neutral source of information), they should suffer every last consequence if that influence results in a state of emergency being called. The question of whether or not Martin's shooting was justified should be left to the legal system. About the only thing I agree on is that Obama shouldn't have said that.

However, I have yet to find a place where stating that black-on-black crime is worse results in some sort of firestorm, unless you're bringing it up inappropriately. However, white-on-black crime exists, just as black-on-white crime, and any other racial split you can think of. So while the arguments behind your logic work, I don't know how you came to your conclusion, since I don't see what's so offensive about it.

EDIT: And now that I think about it. . .with the way Trump carries himself, he'd probably make the same type of gaffe that Obama did above. That's not encouraging.

Edited June 26, 2016 by eclipse

[blah the Prussian]

So, this is absolute, undeniable fact: Gary Johnson's campaign slogan needs to be "Gary was here! Trump and Clinton are losers!"

[Ansem]

I saw the liberterian town hall and I really enjoyed how they answered questions straight and didn't beat around the bush.