Thus Week in Political Correctness

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still confused.  Killing for not following Dogma is leftist - is that what you're saying ?  So only leftists do this ?

[drummindiver]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm still confused.  Killing for not following Dogma is leftist - is that what you're saying ?  So only leftists do this ?

You are being obstinate now.

Are we talking in absolutes?

All Muslims must be radical?

Only right wingers care about making money?  Then I guess I have a leg to stand on when I bitch about supporting people on weflare for years.

Only rightes believe in God? Then all lefties and myself are going to Hell. 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

I'm just asking you about your thoughts here, which say that radical Islam is leftist because of killing for not following Dogma.  I don't know the answers to those other questions.  

To me 'political correctness' was a way to communicate in a way that is less offensive to people in general.  Others disagree, and even say it's designed to shut down discussion.  I like discussion, which is why I am asking you about your thoughts here.

[Ash74]

In Ontario OHIP covers sex change operations. Now if anybody disagrees with funding this instead of say keeping a rural hospital open or sending people to another country for treatment that can't be done here. that opinion is deemed prejudice and you will be shouted down from speaking. 

The latest move for the PC crowd is to shout any opinions that they have deemed not part of a progressive society. 

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

In Ontario OHIP covers sex change operations. Now if anybody disagrees with funding this instead of say keeping a rural hospital open or sending people to another country for treatment that can't be done here. that opinion is deemed prejudice and you will be shouted down from speaking. 

The latest move for the PC crowd is to shout any opinions that they have deemed not part of a progressive society. 

Although, it seems that the right always wants to 'shut down' things they don't approve of in favor of things they object to in other conversations:  Shut down sex-change operations to keep rural hospitals open (but don't spend any money on rural hospitals because we can't afford it).  Stop immigration and spend more money on vets (but vets already get enough money, it's only a few that are complaining, they are such entitled snowflakes and probably lying).  Stop immigration and spend more money on the homeless (but the homeless choose to live there, and why should we pay for them to not work?).  

Any money-spending progressive notion directed to those less fortunate or to infrastructure is met with the objection that we'll run a deficit (we're all gonna die!) and/or too much tax is being taken from the rich/everyman (they'll all leave the country and we're all gonna die!).   Ultimately it comes across that the only concern of the right is to take care of themselves and to hell with the rest of the world.   

 

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree, there has to be a way to move towards sustainable energy, without putting our whole economy at risk.   But it is the people who protest who bring attention to these issues, else we'd all be racing ever more quickly toward a cliff because we certainly can't trust Big Business to let us know where that cliff edge is.

 

 

 

 

My problem with the protests is that there is outrage without facts,  and this is due to social media click bait imo.  There was just a huge train derailment killing 5 or 6. Thats what we should be demonstrating. 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

In Ontario OHIP covers sex change operations. Now if anybody disagrees with funding this instead of say keeping a rural hospital open or sending people to another country for treatment that can't be done here.  

Where can't it be done ?  Certainly in Ontario, at least on MLW it can be.

The decision to fund sex change operations happened in 2008 - this news coverage says it costs $200,000 a year.

https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2008/05/16/ohip_to_cover_sex_changes.html

Discussions around health care are sensitive and people get offended easily, so I think it's important for people to listen well.

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm just asking you about your thoughts here, which say that radical Islam is leftist because of killing for not following Dogma.  I don't know the answers to those other questions.  

To me 'political correctness' was a way to communicate in a way that is less offensive to people in general.  Others disagree, and even say it's designed to shut down discussion.  I like discussion, which is why I am asking you about your thoughts here.

That comment was satirical and historical.  I don't believe the left leaning ppl on this site are Mao Zedong the same as the right are not fascist. 

You've touched on two very salient points

Political correctness I believe was for, as you say,  making not only communication but acts less offensive. Putting up  a Christmas tree for example. That same example also shows how much PC shuts down the conversation.

There will never be a middle ground  in Canada imo. Someone will always be offended by someone elses heritage and customs. Sad but true.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think that any reasonable person thinks that putting up a Christmas tree is offensive.

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

 

Any money-spending progressive notion directed to those less fortunate or to infrastructure is met with the objection that we'll run a deficit (we're all gonna die!) and/or too much tax is being taken from the rich/everyman (they'll all leave the country and we're all gonna die!).   Ultimately it comes across that the only concern of the right is to take care of themselves and to hell with 

Why is it then that Paul Martin' s infamous budget of 1995 focused on the deficit? What did they cut? Health, education, infrastructure.  Sound all encompassing? Historical.

They also diverted 53 billion dollars from EI to pay down the deficit,  and then made it harder for people to get.  Kicked them when they were down. This was deemed illegal in court btw.

Seems like they only care about themselves and not about hard working Canadians.

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that any reasonable person thinks that putting up a Christmas tree is offensive.

A two second Google search would prove you wrong.

One of many.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3385563/Youths-destroy-town-centre-Christmas-tree-petrol-bomb-shouting-Allahu-Akbar-Belgian-city.html

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Guest]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, there's a much simpler explanation but it would be politically incorrect to point it out.

 

That it's a myth?  That's not politically incorrect.  It might not make you many friends in your neck of the woods though.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree, there has to be a way to move towards sustainable energy, without putting our whole economy at risk.  

Why?  There does not have to be a way at all. 

That's the problem with AGW.  No-one is willing to do what it takes to actually stop it, but everyone is willing for everyone else to suffer a little to give the impression they are trying.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Why?  There does not have to be a way at all. 

That's the problem with AGW.  No-one is willing to do what it takes to actually stop it, but everyone is willing for everyone else to suffer a little to give the impression they are trying.

Umm ... not sure what you are saying here.  Also, I cannot remember what AGW means.   

Otherwise, I think everyone will have to do their part sooner or later.   Later will be harder.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Umm ... not sure what you are saying here.  Also, I cannot remember what AGW means.   

Otherwise, I think everyone will have to do their part sooner or later.   Later will be harder.

You said there "has to be a way"  There doesn't.  Why does there "Have to be a way"?

As to the second part, stopping the occasional pipeline and paying more at the pump isn't going to do anything.  Anthropogenic Global Warming, if it is as bad as the models predict, (admittedly not a given) will take drastic measures to stop.  A massive move to nuclear power, for instance, with any mention of waste and accidents given the same priority as AGW denial. (Moving from coal to natural gas first)

A worldwide program of sterilization to bring down the population. 

If protesting against the oil sands is the furthest we are willing to go, then either we don't really believe in it, or we are all going to fry.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

A two second Google search would prove you wrong.

One of many.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3385563/Youths-destroy-town-centre-Christmas-tree-petrol-bomb-shouting-Allahu-Akbar-Belgian-city.html

We were talking about political correctness.  That article is about vandalism..

 

Sorry but I think we all need to be specific when we are talking about these things.

Let me help you out.  A better example of Political Correctness taken to its extreme is the ruling against Trinity University in Canada.  I side with those who say it restricts religious freedom.

[dialamah]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Anthropogenic Global Warming, if it is as bad as the models predict, (admittedly not a given) will take drastic measures to stop.  A massive move to nuclear power, for instance, with any mention of waste and accidents given the same priority as AGW denial. 

A worldwide program of sterilization to bring down the population. 

If protesting against the oil sands is the furthest we are willing to go, then either we don't really believe in it, or we are all going to fry.

From what I recall of the climate change course I was encouraged to take when I started my government job last spring, the models are calculated at three levels:  best case scenario, likeliest scenario and worst case scenario.    I don't think forced sterilization will be necessary, since scenarios 2 & 3 provide us with a reduction in population through civil war and famine.    The goal, according to the producers of this course, isn't to scare the crappola out of people, but to try to ensure that mitigation begins now so that we progress at level one, with minimal impact on economy.  And people, but mostly the economy since this is essentially a 'conservative' government.

You are right, protesting against oil sands isn't enough.  On the other hand, with the number of climate change deniers we have, it's not surprising we haven't moved much beyond that.   

  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

From what I recall of the climate change course I was encouraged to take when I started my government job last spring, the models are calculated at three levels:  best case scenario, likeliest scenario and worst case scenario.    I don't think forced sterilization will be necessary, since scenarios 2 & 3 provide us with a reduction in population through civil war and famine.    The goal, according to the producers of this course, isn't to scare the crappola out of people, but to try to ensure that mitigation begins now so that we progress at level one, with minimal impact on economy.  And people, but mostly the economy since this is essentially a 'conservative' government.

You are right, protesting against oil sands isn't enough.  On the other hand, with the number of climate change deniers we have, it's not surprising we haven't moved much beyond that.   

  

It's not the climate change deniers that are the problem. (not withstanding the recent US election)

It's the people who go to Kyoto, and Copenhagen, and Paris, and come back with a plan that will do the job this time, if we act now!  And then forget about it.  I don't have the data, but I have heard recently how coal fired power generation is going up, not down in many parts of the world.  Methane is starting to leach out of the ground, and the oceans.  Nothing we can do will reduce greenhouse gases to the extent needed without a worldwide effort, that doesn't show any signs of happening.

I was listening to an Indian woman talking to Leonardo DiCaprio on the radio today, and she was talking about how 700 million people in India still cook using "biomass" fuel, and the health effects that can have.  She was challenging him to tell them they should not have electricity.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that any reasonable person thinks that putting up a Christmas tree is offensive.

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

A two second Google search would prove you wrong.

One of many.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3385563/Youths-destroy-town-centre-Christmas-tree-petrol-bomb-shouting-Allahu-Akbar-Belgian-city.html

"We were talking about political correctness.  That article is about vandalism..

Sorry but I think we all need to be specific when we are talking about these things."  Michael Hardner

I agree  I specifically  responded to your erroneous assertion.

Edited December 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

I agree  I specificalky responded to your erroneous assertion.

My assertion was:

"I don't think that any reasonable person thinks that putting up a Christmas tree is offensive."

Unless you think these people are reasonable, then my point stands.  Rather than fight on a lost hill, wouldn't you rather talk about Trinity which is actually important and proves your point ?  I'm trying to help you better your argument here.  The Trinity example could well go to the supreme court.  

[drummindiver]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

My assertion was:

"I don't think that any reasonable person thinks that putting up a Christmas tree is offensive."

Unless you think these people are reasonable, then my point stands.  Rather than fight on a lost hill, wouldn't you rather talk about Trinity which is actually important and proves your point ?  I'm trying to help you better your argument here.  The Trinity example could well go to the supreme court.  

I posted an extreme reaction.  As I said, a two second Google search would find you a plethora of people vehemently opposed to Christmas trees by virtue of religion. I can't imagine they are all unreasonable people?

Is the Trinity case PC?  I understand both sides.As a religious school, they should have the freedom to set guidelines and rules. Of course they should still be accredited. As a person with many  friends  and family in the LGBTQ, I ubderstand their concerns with prejudice. 

A NFP I was president of worked with the DLCC to try and  have DOLA overturned here in Ontario, and Clayton Ruby was our lawyer. Incredible man, incredible convictions.

 

 

 

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

 

If protesting against the oil sands is the furthest we are willing to go, then either we don't really believe in it, or we are all going to fry.

Standing Rock is the apogee of hypocrisy. Everyone drivivg there to take selfies. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

I posted an extreme reaction.  As I said, a two second Google search would find you a plethora of people vehemently opposed to Christmas trees by virtue of religion. I can't imagine they are all unreasonable people?

Is the Trinity case PC?  I understand both sides.As a religious school, they should have the freedom to set guidelines and rules. Of course they should still be accredited. As a person with many  friends  and family in the LGBTQ, I ubderstand their concerns with prejudice. 

A NFP I was president of worked with the DLCC to try and  have DOLA overturned here in Ontario, and Clayton Ruby was our lawyer. Incredible man, incredible convictions.

 

 

 

Yes, I get that and I understand that it's related but I don't really want to extend the discussion.  We were talking about Political Correctness, but if we extend it to 'people opposed to Christmas' then the discussion will sprawl off in many directions and go off topic pretty quickly.  If you want to talk about the Christmas tree incident and what it may signify it might be better for another topic.

The Trinity case is indeed a case of PC projecting into the area of constitutional rights IMO.  

The Dog Legislation case is also related - if you start a thread on that I would gladly contribute as I am strongly pro-dog legislation for mostly irrational reasons.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

It's not the climate change deniers that are the problem. (not withstanding the recent US election)

It's the people who go to Kyoto, and Copenhagen, and Paris, and come back with a plan that will do the job this time, if we act now!  And then forget about it.  I don't have the data, but I have heard recently how coal fired power generation is going up, not down in many parts of the world.  Methane is starting to leach out of the ground, and the oceans.  Nothing we can do will reduce greenhouse gases to the extent needed without a worldwide effort, that doesn't show any signs of happening.

I was listening to an Indian woman talking to Leonardo DiCaprio on the radio today, and she was talking about how 700 million people in India still cook using "biomass" fuel, and the health effects that can have.  She was challenging him to tell them they should not have electricity.

Yup, all good observations and I really can't argue it at all.   So, basically, we're screwed with deniers on one side and whim-driven believers on the other.   Might as well resign ourselves to the inevitable and spend our last decades living as well as we can.   Bring on that pipeline, give me the money!  

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yup, all good observations and I really can't argue it at all.   So, basically, we're screwed with deniers on one side and whim-driven believers on the other.   Might as well resign ourselves to the inevitable and spend our last decades living as well as we can.   Bring on that pipeline, give me the money!  

It is definitely going to be interesting to see the US tack on AGW once DT takes over, givin his EPA appointment.  It'll be interesting to see the world reaction.