Thus Week in Political Correctness

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

No OftenWrong is actually right.  Analogies usually don't work.  Mine didn't capture everything.  Here's the thing with the middle-east:  if the US were to be Mr. Niceguy and cease dominating the region militarily and bring all their troops home, then that would create a power vacuum, and it would be filled likely by other competing states like Russia or China, because the region is strategically important mainly because of its vast oil reserves.  The only way for the US to leave the middle east is a) a cheaper alternative to oil is found or B. the middle-east is treated by the international community as a "no-go" zone where all non-ME countries agree that they can't involve themselves militarily or provide economic/military aid etc. to any ME country (but that would be almost impossible to do).

I know yours didn't capture it all that's why I mentioned cops, drunks and irresponsible friends.

All the US had to do was be a good cop and do unto everyone as it would have them do unto it. Instead they got drunk and as it turns out they're a really mean drunk.  At this point it's a real toss up as to who's boot-heel would be worse for the ME to be stuck under.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'll put it to you another way then:  the innocent civilians who died that day didn't deserve to be attacked/killed.  The terrorists are murderers and are,overwhelmingly responsible for those deaths, and were completely immoral for targeting civilians, but the US government, based on decades of murdering and exploiting Muslims in the ME, bears some complicity for instigating the attack. 

Decades of murdering and exploiting Muslims in the ME? I suppose you mean by supporting Israel against all the Muslim countries which want to redo the Holocaust? That's where your idiotic analogy fails, after all. It's more like the police go on strike, and a bunch of brutal Arabs decide to set fire to a Jew they find in the streets. Dave shoots at them, killing a couple, while the rest run away crying and urinating down their legs. Then, later, they creep up to his house when he's not there and kill his family. That's what you're using to say "Well, Dave had it coming."

 

[Moonlight Graham]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

All the US had to do was be a good cop and do unto everyone as it would have them do unto it.

Exactly 100% correct.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, drummindiver said:

" Are you a bullshitter"

"You'll remain completely useless at backing up your claims until such time as you actually back them up. "

All EB quotes,  but I fet banned for saying liar.

 

These are quotes of what I said not what you heard. Unfortunately you never get that difference and so when you respond to what you heard and I ask to show me where you actually heard me say that it never matches up with what I wrote.  This is normally called moving goalposts and creating strawmen...you're so bad at though that it's not funny.

You do this constantly, as evidenced in this very same post... 

Quote

There is zero difference saying 3000 men and women getting bombed to death going to sork Monday morning had it coming or deserved it. It's the same, laying blame at bombees,   not bombers.

It's not the same. Instead of responding to what I wrote, America having it coming you switched to some relationship between bombers and bombees...fine have it your way, When we blow up innocent bystanders alongside our legitimate targets we call it collateral damage.  Given the attackers on 9/11 targeted the symbols of American interference in the Muslim world, military, political, and financial I have little doubt there were individuals in those places who were as legitimate a target as any we target on their side.  The bystanders were collateral damage.

 

Now I've heard it argued before that the innocent we kill alongside the guilty over there deserve what they get for associating with the guilty so by the same token why should it be any different here?  Why shouldn't we do any different unto ourselves as we do to unto others? 

Edited January 18, 2017 by eyeball

[drummindiver]

d

Edited January 18, 2017 by drummindiver

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

You've left out other posts with your name calling but regardless. I'm not going to play semantically oriented games that lead nowhere but me getting banned and you continue posting.

Wah.

What name calling? Cite or bite.

Quote

How's that for a politically correct post?

Of topic as usual.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys, 

Stop the personal banter. 

[betsy]

Here's the politically-correct way of making conclusions about Alexandre Besonnette:

 

Quote

Right-wing terrorism....   Why would you be afraid to tell it like it is?  You don't have any qualms about saying 'Islamic terrorist"....

 

Never mind that the motive for the killing isn't clear.   Never mind that the cops hadn't charged him with terrorism. Never mind that they don't know whether he actually is a right-wing, or a Muslim-hater.

 

If you murder a Muslim - you are right-wing!

If you kill more than one Muslim - you are a right-wing terrorist.

Edited January 31, 2017 by betsy

[Argus]

This is an interesting read about an old leftist who was the heart and soul of political correctness and multiculturalism and who has since seen the light.

In 2000 Trevor Phillips was responsible for a report calling for a 'community of communities' in multi-ethnic Britain, and an advocate of the idea that they could all live in peace and harmony so long as they were careful not to give offense to each other. Now he opposes the idea, calls for more 'britishness' to be adopted, and is opposed to laws that criminalize giving offense.

“I don’t care about offending people,” he says. “And I don’t really care about being offended. There are quite a lot of people I actually want to offend. And I want to offend them all the time. But if somebody stands on the other side of the street and shouts nigger at me – I’m not going to be thrilled, but I’m not going to argue for him to get locked up.”

Much of what he says about Britain is easily translated into Canada, particularly how the elites maintain their groupthink.

“A ruling elite maintains an idea of what’s good and reasonable by a whole series of methods,” he counters. “Who gets advancement, rewards and status? If you don’t hold to the orthodoxy, you stop being invited to meetings. There’s a phrase that people in centre-left politics use: oh he’s very good. What they actually mean is: I agree with him.”

I ask Phillips if the threat of expulsion from his political tribe does act as a disincentive to speak out about what he really thinks.

“Depends how much of your life you want to spend lying to yourself,” he says. “I think it’s pretty wearying to get up each day and tell yourself to go advocate for something that you know not to be true. And what is even worse is if you’re in public office or politics and everyone you’re telling this to also knows it isn’t true. Not only are you a liar, you’re also an idiot.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/19/trevor-phillips-i-dont-care-about-offending-people-has-political-correctness-gone-mad-channel-4

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is an interesting read about an old leftist who was the heart and soul of political correctness and multiculturalism and who has since seen the light.

Yeah, I've read about Trevor Philips from time to time.  A very sane man.  (Anyone who gets on Ken Livingstone's nerves must be doing something right)

Funny to see the Guardian trying not to say nice things about him, but not quite being able to avoid it.

Edited February 19, 2017 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

“if somebody stands on the other side of the street and shouts nigger at me – I’m not going to be thrilled, but I’m not going to argue for him to get locked up.”

Yes, this is getting close to the border. Standing on the other side of the street and shouting names is one thing, but getting in someones face and saying go back to the jungle is different. One is expressing a vile opinion, and they should be denounced. The other is causing fear, and they should be charged.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, this is getting close to the border. Standing on the other side of the street and shouting names is one thing, but getting in someones face and saying go back to the jungle is different. One is expressing a vile opinion, and they should be denounced. The other is causing fear, and they should be charged.

Depends on context. A six foot four bodybuilder type getting in your face and screaming nigger (or for that matter, popcorn or strawberry jam) is definitely putting someone in fear. A five foot tall old lady muttering. "I don't like you niggers" not so much. I don't think anyone should be put in fear of assault - in fact the definition of assault, in some jurisdictions, does not require actual physical contact. But I don't think someone should be arrested and charged for causing offense. And I think that was his point. He doesn't care if someone is offended by his words, and if he's offended by theirs, well he'll tough that out.