Jump to content

Scott Mayers

Members
  • Posts

    1,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Scott Mayers last won the day on June 18 2018

Scott Mayers had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

4,510 profile views

Scott Mayers's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

74

Reputation

  1. On "Critical Race Theory": Although the OP titled the thread with this term, it doesn't seem to relate. From what I gathered so far, "Critical Race Theory" is a collection of specific critical arguments that seem to be authored by those with some general belief in proposing government affirmative-like laws that are generally interpreted as BIASED under normal circumstances. These might be things like someone who believes a law should be made to reverse the role of "innocent until proven guilty" if a woman were to accuse a guy of some sexual violation. If this is the case, I am likely against this view. Some of the possible arguments (yet to specifically see at the moment) can be that we need to advocate for a victim class with special bias because they are assumed to be 'systematically' abused. It might be argued that this is done without direct intent but that under some belief that it cannot be changed without using such extreme counter-behaviors, we require using laws that are biased out of PRACTICAL considerations. I cannot be sure if there is no means to correct certain issues regarding racism with permanence but still believe that the logic I witness of many 'victims' these days are emoting in a way that falsely implies certain facts about whole races based upon irrational interpretations of the statitics involved. So I do not see how the title reflects the actual subject matter of the OP.
  2. There's a reason Hitler lost and people still speak Bulgarian today. Individuals chose. I missed what you are saying here. I see the 'blah blah' you added to my own quote which implies disapproval. I disapprove of Canada's bilingualism because it implies a special religious bias with clarity. If our system was not lying about its 'mulitculturalism', it shouldn't require protection laws specified for Quebec and English (with its reference to the Queen's superiority, for instance). Our system is an accidental reflection of the traitorous humans who believe that some people are more superior over others when the rest of the colonies demanded independence (the formation of the U.S.). The only way to fix this is to have ONE official language (because we cannot possibly have a system of ALL languages). Having 'official' languages are about the laws, not the people apart from government that we all share. Having even two 'official' languages assures segregation of people and acts to bias the children of those who are forced by arrogant religious parents wanting to 'cultivate' their children by using tactics of innoculation (assuring an 'us' as DISTINCT from 'them' by maligning the outsiders). The reason is because one is permitted to pick ONLY one of the two. But if the language of the same laws are interpreted distinctly due to language's tendency to force bias by cultural standards, then the benefit of power ONLY gets granted to those who have a signficant background of ALL 'official' languages of that state. And because those who have multilingual backgrounds are uniquely 'privilged' beyond the average person, they have an unfair advantage indirectly linked to their above normal economic class. I agree that if you go to another country specifically on a normal occasion, you should try to learn the language and its culture. But to expect us to require the REDUNDANCY of learning multiple languages for the sake of the etiquette of those who disapprove of outsiders actually speaks to why any Constitutional language of a country should be in one. Then, unofficially, these CAN be copied in as many languages as one desires. Because most languages lack that fecundity (the ability to express new ideas), we have to also favor the particular official languages that are permitted to grow without 'cultural' conservation. Our system is thus discriminatory against all but those listed cults who prefer segregating themselves apart from others related to those constituted 'cultures' (the Enlgish Protestants, the French Catholics, and whichever other groups they alone get to qualify as acceptable) and ESPECIALLY to those who have a mixed corresponding relationship to BOTH cults. We need to redress the consitution and remove the arrogant religious bias protecting specific cultures of authority over all others. We need a form of Americas First Amendment type law that separates Church from State with better clarity to specify that "No government or representatives should be permitted to be run by or for specific cultures, nor use their embeded religious justifications implied by 'culture', including representing themselves as such. For the people to have a right to free speech and representation requires a system that has no means to censor nor censure diverse views that those with a biased preference to some subset of the very people electing them serve." The representatives in a people's government should have a priorty to the humans who elect them; those with a religious bias have a priority to their religious authorities, whether this be by some specific cult or to some invisible friend they refer to as some 'god'. [ANYONE in power can justify ANY arbitrary rule by simply asserting that God had just authorized them to do so.] Language is only a part of the problem, but would be the FIRST thing we can do to have any hope of repairing Canada's accidental formation of segregated cults. The only reason we formulated any 'union' (Canada) is due to the weakness of the historic disposition between the formation of the U.S., and Britain and France's own wars over who gets to rule over the colonies. We need to divorce ourselves from these in our consitution without perpetuities respecting them. Then to repair the issues with the Aboriginals, we need to integrate them (without religious institutes) nor by enhancing the Nationalism that we are doing. [Germany's Nazism is a belief in respecting discrete 'aboriginal nationality']
  3. Yes, I agree. It is one extended reason I dislike the stereotyping (including those self-stereotyping) of the formal "Indigenous" as somehow more virtuous for being 'aboriginal' to the land. The non-human diversity of life everywhere is being treated as secondary in signficance to their own 'aboriginal' rights to the Earth. Thus, if one is to not be hypocritical TO this issue, they have to reflect upon the rights of all living things. But I grant credit to the intelligence of the move here by the Natives because it was in direct response to the "incorporation" of business entities as official 'persons' in law who are the ones offending their own concerns of the lands affecting them.
  4. The problem is that when governments use "privilege" as a means to make laws regarding reparations or 'reconciliation', it intentionally targets ALL people of something only 'culturally' biased people think like in terms of statistical interpretations. For instance, those arguing 'our' privilege have the relative power to make ammending laws that attempt to fix this issue by targetting some genetic relation of themselves as EQUIVALENT owners of the problem. So, for instance, if you are white and well off (or English speaking as per the OP), you might interpret the fact that the largest plurality of people OF some race is statistically larger than yours who are classified as poor. One can point also to some statistic that might demonstrate that an unusual large proportion of such a race is also not wealthy. Such interpretation then would jump to the conclusion that the race of mention is poor due to racism. This intepretation though becomes a useful reason for those who are 'white' and who dicatate that 'privilege' is synomous with being White. It suffices to make laws (by THEM and their peers in the same economic powers) that target quotas to lift up the statistical representation of those suffering of the particular race being disriminated against . Then a law might be set up to favor some quota of them BUT intentionally transfers the debt that you agree is due to 'white privilege' onto ONLY the specific 'sacrifice' of the whites who are in the same ecomomic impoverishment as the discriminated race. The 'sacrifice' is actually a scapegoat tactic, not a 'sacrifice' because the wealthy privileged whites making the laws are using the apparent compassion favoring the discriminated race to simultaneously CONSERVE their own LIABILITY to whatever 'privilge' their own direct relatives caused by arrogantly permitting laws that discriminate against the poor whites. I too know this from my own background. I've been discriminated by other non-whites who are also poor because they buy into this 'white privilege' and assume that I must have some rich relative to help me somewhere. It makes it easier for a someone of a minority race to justify their own reason for stealing money from my pocket. The lawmakers asserting whites as a class of privilege are the ones controlling how the minority race looks at the problem too: by defining in terms of 'culture' it begs of them that I too have some 'culture' of being White and so earn the right to be stolen from, even if I'm already down. I then receive the discrimination by the 'privileged' whites who simply interpret my own flaws as specifically and uniquely my own because THEY are of the view that I MUST have had the same minimal advantages they had and are too blind to notice these as accountable for their OWN 'privilege' only. For example, we are not all 'loved' by our parents (as is assumed some default by those who do); we do not receive 'allowances'; many of us are expected to pay rent even as a teen when we try to get work while living at home; we do not all get a car given to us by some parent before the age of twenty. [I think an argument can made about who succeeds based only on whether they had a car before they were 20. And it cannot be rational to assume they 'earned' it by hard labour.]. I have not heard of "critical race theory" before the recent politics and so cannot comment yet on whether this theory is at issue here. But if it has something to declare about specifying laws that segregate people based upon race when the particular issues are non-racially relevant, like why people are rich or poor, then I will likely be against it. Does anyone have recommended sources for "critical race theory" they like? I will Google it up but it might be interesting to know too which sources people favor. Thank you.
  5. This is in response to all you said so far to this post. To me, it is arbitrary to which language will dominate with one exception: that it has sufficient fecundity and evolves to be inclusively neutral as opposed to cultural segregating languages. I am using the term "fecundity" from this same topic as discussed in linguistics. It just means that it has the ability to evolve with changes. Most languages are intentionally biased to some particular culture, including their religions and beliefs about one's genetic superiority/inferiority. English, while it has its own roots in the British colonizing as interpreted negatively, nevertheless has this property because of this. And many people from different countries who teach this is in line with this thinking. Quebec's French is intentionally anti-universal (more than and in contrast to its original country's source) as it successfully isolates kids who grow up in ONLY that language and possibly why there is a secular uprising against permitting ideals of such arrogance by the religiousity of puritanical language beliefs. Our bilingualism also biases against those who speak ONLY one of these languages with respect to federal power in government because it FAVORS precisely those like yourself who represent above average income (to be able to travel the world, for instance). When using "privilege" as a self-descriptive term, you cannot speak for others based on non-economic classifications. But I do not get the title's relationship here. Can you please explain?
  6. ...with automatic 'circumcision' capsule too? ....and it was over so quickly too!
  7. Anyone watching Captain Kirk's takeoff to space for the first time?
  8. [I thought about not using that word (moron) given I figured that this would be noticed by me regardless of the continuous insults being presented by you guys. But unlike you guys, the term is only a rhetorical addition to the logic, not dependent upon it.] I like a bit of everyone and so cannot disagree with your right to favor something regarding personalities. But I don't interpret others as worthy of absolute faith (nor absolute disfaith) even where they may have personalities that I may agree with most of the time (or disagree with most of the time). I also interpret commentary as 'entertaining' of their subjective minds based upon their personalities. The facts they believe in should be caveated as representing their own view in light of possibly being incorrect. The actual 'facts' though, have to be presented without emotional interpretation and why the concept of neutality is essential when reporting. I did mention that Fox declared their philosophy to be strictly for the conservative Republican bias, right? Their choice to to be exclusively and openly biased does not mean that all the others ARE also equally biased exclusively against the conservative view as they are though. The expectation of many of those favoring Fox with such overt extremes is to demand utter faith in them or risk being threatened by false and obscene perversions in the way the Mafia might prove how one needs to pay for their protection by becoming the very threat should you not choose their exclusive services. Note that there is something called the "projection principle" from social-psychology that asserts that we tend to project onto others that which is actually about ourselves. So those who jump to some oddly extreme conclusion about someone else is projecting who they are reflectively. The ones accusing all who is not like them as being biased is thus reflecting that they themselves are the ones' being most irrationally biased. For example, the paranoid drug addict might accuse others as being 'high' without apparent warrant when they are attempting to deflect that they themselves are high. This is only most prevalent where one is invested in extreme accusations that lack foundations. How, for instance, did Hillary Clinton get accused of running or being a part of some child pedaphile ring through some restaurant (Pizzagate)? Strict conservative 'news' personalities (on the internet) wanting to throw out false news in order to get others to disprove the charge PROJECTS upon themselves that they are most likely reflecting their declared certainty as possible because of what they themselves must interpret as probable about their own perversions. Here are some samples of the 'extreme' accusations that Fox intentionally fed out as 'true' and why people have to interpret such behavior as reflecting who Fox is by projection [https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-teases-more-lies-fox-news-will-report-as-true-but-then-retract-video/] : “Fauci: Babies in the womb must wear masks.” HBO “National anthem before NASCAR to be replaced by acknowledgement of privilege.” HBO “Looting to be renamed ‘justice shopping.'” HBO “Dems: In all depictions of Jesus, crown of thorns to be replaced with pussy hat.”
  9. Why do I require spelling out faults of other networks when the problem that I'm pointing out is that the Trump-loving fans have faith in the Fox News with an extreme exclusivity? It is irrational to blindly trust ANY news at all if you believe there exists some 'binary' black-or-white political biases that define your faith. You morons falsely believe that the rest of the secular society is equally as religious as you when it comes to taking strict sides. And this only backfires because you will get what you assume is 'true' by doing whatever it takes to assure it happens regardless of the actual truth because you rely on begging facts about your outside opponents without concern for logic nor integrity....which leads to the opponents' necessity to counteractively compete by using the same methods of hate that you espouse. How can you respond, for instance, to someone who accuses you of some set of absurd behaviors knowing that they do not care for requiring actual means of proof against you but by instead appeals to the mere emotional hatred they have of you by maligning you to their own 'friends' emotional connections to you alone? When this occurs, no amount of countering such charges using the best of skills in one's logic or reputation would ever be able to compete because the degree of accusations against you would suffice to the accuser's crowd when they believe in absolute fidelity to demonstrate loyalty of their own kind? [Like how one's young children would blindly trust their parents' to tell the 'truth' even if their parents were the worst liars and haters of others.] What you like about Fox is its 'sensationalism' that strictly defines reality in caricatured extremes. As such, it appeals to the emotionally religious minds like children who appeal to watching toy commercials that intentionally act to manipulate them when they are co-associated with the cartoons they love so much. The fact is, NO Network is absolutely trustworthy. And IF you presume the non-Fox networks are ALL in one conspiracy against YOU or your kind, then you act like the children who cannot understand why their parents who try to tell them that the commercials targeting them are dubious and manipulative: they sulk and throw tantrums should their parents NOT comply with their desires regardless. And what do you do when such chldren simply continue to behave this way? If you cannot reason with them to stop them from their tantrums, all you can do is to take the reins by being more assertive and strictly authoritative by sending them to their rooms. The responses of the non-Fox media is to either ignore the intentional deception or confront them with reflective violence. The Fox media spends most of its reporting time disrespecting the integrity of all their non-Fox competitors using VERY AGRESSIVE bullying tactics that have nothing to do with truth nor integrity. Why SHOULD all other media accept the strict political bias being accused of them simply because Fox chose to be strictly loyal to one particular bias? Even IF your views were somehow true, it would still only prove that BOTH Fox and non-Fox news is identically biased and thus NONE should be trusted! Why trust ANY media that takes ONLY one side's politial view? Two wrongs wouldn't make either side correct. The only solution should be to demand your Fox media NOT be strictly biased to the conserative Republican perspective.
  10. I've been just as censored by conservatives as to liberals throughout my life. The WAYS each does it is distinct but no one is 'innocent' in this. As to media, just be sure to watch as much variety of sources before judging AND this includes EACH concerned issue. It helps to actually know the logical philosophical background on political ideologies because no single ideal exists for all people. I take some issue with how many on the Left and Center interpret letting in immigrants without respecting those at home who suffer with priority. The reality is that when we let people in as though they are all innocent refuges of countries who are troubled, we set a precedence to permitting the source countries of immigrants to KEEP their home country in disrepair and put MORE pressure on those isolated here and in need. But the conservatives have not presented this case with their own precedence of arguing for fears of 'crime' as though this is uniquely impossible by themselves. As such, they do not use logical means to argue with priority but prioritize SENSATIONALISM and emotional appeals. It was not the case prior to the creation of Fox with its overt favoritism to ONLY the Republican side that the rest of the media outlets were considered 'liberal'. That is, all networks favor the conservative wealth to operate. The poor almost universally, for instance, would appeal to more socialist progressive ideals where such programs could enable them to survive and hopefully progress out of their conditions. But these people definitely do not own ANY media and they get trivial notice outside of government mandated networks, such as the CBC (Canada) or BBC (Britain). As such, it is RIDICULOUS that the Fox fans seem to think all other media is bunk unless they are the same types who would be gullible enough to fall for a cult where the cult leader(s) are assumed puritanical truthsayers with EXCLUSIVE VALIDITY while all outsiders are pure evil. As to the way media will caricature the men on horses as though they represent the imagery of violators against slave traders of the past, this is only reflecting some the countercultural beliefs of those who are most unusually sensitive on the on all but the extremes on the Right. All media other than government mandated ones would not dare to favor those 'liberal' views they are collectively accused of or they would risk a means to profit by the advertisers such corporations rely on for profit. But the traditional media companies had not thought to deliberately be so strictly 'conservative' in their ethics of reporting. Only until Fox came about has this absurd deliberate use of favoring the conservative ONLY news existed. And of course, to lock in their flock only requires feeding doubt about all other media outlets as being 'liberal' commies. The Fox philosophy of its founders literally based the idea for their network on the sensationalism of 'Hard Copy' (the most extreme rag magazine analogue on television.) The rag magazines' outsell the actual news and this suggested to the founders of Fox that this could be a sincere means to PROFIT upon the most gullible. What better example of "capitalism" it is for a company to take opportunistic advantage of a market that assures the maximum profits knowing that their followers would act like members of a cult who would NOT trust any outsider and be PERFECTLY LOYAL just as a devout cult member would. This doesn't mean that those of us who know this wouldn't find value in watching Fox. The problem is the we would generally know not to trust any one source of news because we are not 'faith-based' thinkers. The faith-based thinkers do not seem to notice the strong presence of commentators' use of rhetoric to REPORT the news rather than just using rhetoric to SUPPORT what is reported distinctly elsewhere. The news prior to those like Fox was dull reporting and commentators only existed in documentary type programs we used to call, "investigative reporting". If anyone wants to argue the logical concerns regarding immigration risks, not even the supposed 'liberal' media seem to be willing to do this these days precisely for seeing how the powerful successes of Fox has 'cultivated' their viewers to a specific party ideal. You certainly cannot argue that only Democrats existed in government when there was only the traditional media Fox labels, "liberals". That is, if the traditional media sources were strictly 'liberal' liars, how EVER did a Republican win an election without Fox?
  11. You fixed it, Greg? I can do it now. Let me know if you did nothing by email, again, thanks.
  12. So I can post here but if I make a mistake and have to delete this, I have to reset the whole page and begin again, which gets annoying if I have to delete this part.
×
×
  • Create New...