I think that any kind of transsexualism that manifests as an urge for "gender reassignment surgery" is a pathology rather than a gender or a sexual orientation. The urge to massive self-mutilation or castration is not a healthy one. :ph34r:
That said I try very hard to be civil and polite with every transsexual I have ever met, and have purposefully avoided expressing my opinion on the matter.
What is your least PC belief?
As you should, you bigot.
Anyway, obviously it's my belief in the fundamental moral soundness of total war.
Agree. Transsexuals and vegetarians are goofballs. Also, young children need to be spanked.
Buddah's going to be pissed.
I think that most forms of variants sexuality should still be considered paraphilic disorders. While I'm not suggesting that homosexuals should be persecuted or treated differently, I still think it fits the criteria of a paraphilic disorder at it is a variant behavior that causes difficulties for person both mentally and physically. I also think that since homosexuality is something you are born with, parents will have a choice if their children will be homosexual or not in the future and it will become extremely uncommon.
I imagine if I look review all my opinions I can find enough shit to dig my own grave over and over. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
Buddah's going to be pissed.
I think that most forms of variants sexuality should still be considered paraphilic disorders. While I'm not suggesting that homosexuals should be persecuted or treated differently, I still think it fits the criteria of a paraphilic disorder at it is a variant behavior that causes difficulties for person both mentally and physically. I also think that since homosexuality is something you are born with, parents will have a choice if their children will be homosexual or not in the future and it will become extremely uncommon.
The rational utility-maximixing option would seem at first blush to be bisexuality.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
The rational utility-maximixing option would seem at first blush to be bisexuality.
IDK why. Heterosexuality results in children and substantially decreased levels of STD spread due to immune systems. That said I don't think we'll ever be able to completely de-program homosexuality genetically. Even if we could, I'm not sure we'd want to.
Double your pleasure, double your fun.
I think Ide is a pretty interesting movie reviewer.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 01:25:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
The rational utility-maximixing option would seem at first blush to be bisexuality.
IDK why. Heterosexuality results in children and substantially decreased levels of STD spread due to immune systems.
Hetero sex has lower STD risk than lesbian sex? Colour me sceptical.
I think it was lucky for the world that the top dog for the past two centuries was initially Britain followed by the USA.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 28, 2014, 02:56:55 AM
I think it was lucky for the world that the top dog for the past two centuries was initially Britain followed by the USA.
I'm a little worried if that's the *most* un-PC thing you believe. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
The rational utility-maximixing option would seem at first blush to be bisexuality.
For you maybe, but not for your parents. If you fall in love with a nice fellow and adopt an Asian child, their genes aren't getting passed on.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 28, 2014, 02:56:55 AM
I think it was lucky for the world that the top dog for the past two centuries was initially Britain followed by the USA.
I'm a little worried if that's the *most* un-PC thing you believe. :(
You haven't expressed such a view in Lewisham Labour club on a Saturday night though, I'm lucky to still be alive :lol:
But I'll put another one in, in general I am against positive discrimination.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 28, 2014, 02:56:55 AM
I think it was lucky for the world that the top dog for the past two centuries was initially Britain followed by the USA.
I think you're going backwards here. They were top dogs because certain policies such as individual liberties and the rule of law are more effective than the alternatives. If the Spanish Empire had evolved into a state that valued those things while the UK was subjected to the rule of reactionaries it would have been Spain that kept its domination and the world would be no worse off for it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 03:02:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
The rational utility-maximixing option would seem at first blush to be bisexuality.
For you maybe, but not for your parents. If you fall in love with a nice fellow and adopt an Asian child, their genes aren't getting passed on.
Utility is maximized by dying back the human species anyway. Relax.
Quote from: celedhring on March 28, 2014, 02:31:53 AM
I think Ide is a pretty interesting movie reviewer.
:lol:
Thanks. :hug:
My most un-pc belief.
PC is a lie we pretend to agree on just so other people can live their lie without starting an argument every time.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 28, 2014, 03:06:01 AM
I think you're going backwards here. They were top dogs because certain policies such as individual liberties and the rule of law are more effective than the alternatives.
The jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.
I can definitely see an "end of history" scenario where physical limitations have stifled the rate of technological progress and autocratic governments which are geared toward maintaining power outperform more free and innovative societies.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 03:13:25 AM
Utility is maximized by dying back the human species anyway. Relax.
Utility to who? Unless you put the government in charge of choosing traits for the baby (which I'm sure you'd like to :lol:) the decision-making would be based on the perspective of the parents, where utility is maximized by other people not reproducing so their own offspring have more access to resources.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 04:18:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 03:13:25 AM
Utility is maximized by dying back the human species anyway. Relax.
Utility to who? Unless you put the government in charge of choosing traits for the baby (which I'm sure you'd like to :lol:) the decision-making would be based on the perspective of the parents, where utility is maximized by other people not reproducing so their own offspring have more access to resources.
And that's why it all has to be subordinated to needs of the many, Professor Gattaca. :P
Anyway, I can see your point.
Mild gingerism.
That colonialism and imperialism was a net good for the world. Probably the best thing to happen Africa and large parts of Asia.
Nope.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
Buddah's going to be pissed.
I think that most forms of variants sexuality should still be considered paraphilic disorders. While I'm not suggesting that homosexuals should be persecuted or treated differently, I still think it fits the criteria of a paraphilic disorder at it is a variant behavior that causes difficulties for person both mentally and physically. I also think that since homosexuality is something you are born with, parents will have a choice if their children will be homosexual or not in the future and it will become extremely uncommon.
How much of that is do to societal pressures / what society allows? I wonder if both of the items you list won't decline over time.
I find the term PC useless, really.
I guess my least PC opinion, if not belief, is that the war on drugs is a massive failure and counter-productive.
Is this supposed to be most right-wing belief? Most uncharitable belief? Most idiosyncratic-in-a-bad-way belief?
Deep down, I am against private enterprise.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 08:17:22 AM
Deep down, I am against private enterprise.
Not sure if that qualifies as PC.
When I was in graduate school I used to count up the number of white people in the class. The more white people the larger the curve; and any class that was more than 25% white was a free A. This is because white people are spoiled, lazy and stupid. :(
No ones done a Mac joke yet? BB I'm disappointed in you.
Quote from: garbon on March 28, 2014, 07:07:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
Buddah's going to be pissed.
I think that most forms of variants sexuality should still be considered paraphilic disorders. While I'm not suggesting that homosexuals should be persecuted or treated differently, I still think it fits the criteria of a paraphilic disorder at it is a variant behavior that causes difficulties for person both mentally and physically. I also think that since homosexuality is something you are born with, parents will have a choice if their children will be homosexual or not in the future and it will become extremely uncommon.
How much of that is do to societal pressures / what society allows? I wonder if both of the items you list won't decline over time.
Unknown. It's probably a major factor, but not sure how much it would decline. For instance much higher rates of STDs (something like 4 times as much), is that because of gay culture? Possibly.
Quote from: HVC on March 28, 2014, 08:41:52 AM
No ones done a Mac joke yet? BB I'm disappointed in you.
:lol: In my defence I'm not even at work yet!
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 08:26:12 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 08:17:22 AM
Deep down, I am against private enterprise.
Not sure if that qualifies as PC.
Around here, it's definetly un-PC.
Where to start. :hmm:
What's with this recent confessional bent Languish is now taking, first opinions on onions, 'whats on you mind' and now this!
It's a worrying trend; not sure I'm too keen on getting views of the inner workings of other languishites. :(
Maybe we could just stick to arguing to toss about bits of military kit and bashing each other over the head with raspberry flavoured strawmen?
Everybody needs a break.
I'm getting a chuckle out of the PC posters struggling with the question. :P
It's easier for me to say which PC beliefs I *do* subscribe to: you don't call black people niggers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 09:24:27 AM
I'm getting a chuckle out of the PC posters struggling with the question. :P
It's easier for me to say which PC beliefs I *do* subscribe to: you don't call black people niggers.
I doubt that's true.
There definitely is a common body of "politically correct" thoughts, the large majority of which are fairly uncontroversial to the vast majority - even Admiral Yis. For example I'm pretty sure Yi believes in the equality of the races, in private enterprise, and private property.
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2014, 09:28:39 AM
I doubt that's true.
There definitely is a common body of "politically correct" thoughts, the large majority of which are fairly uncontroversial to the vast majority - even Admiral Yis. For example I'm pretty sure Yi believes in the equality of the races, in private enterprise, and private property.
Equality under the law hardly qualifies as PC. If one were to say "I think a white man and a black man should get the same sentence for murder," the likelihood someone will say "oh, you're so PC" is very low.
PC is more inclined to be in favor of equality of outcome than equality of process.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
PC is more inclined to be in favor of equality of outcome than equality of process.
Could be.
I've found the term PC being applied to anyone adhering to views like "not all Muslims are terrorists" and gay rights advocates. To me, though, PC is more a refusal to recognise there are downsides to progress, if the term has any meaning at all.
It's bandied about as much as "racist" or "bigot", so whatever meaning the words once had are gone.
To me PC is speaking half truth to hide the elephant truth in the room.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 28, 2014, 08:35:55 AM
When I was in graduate school I used to count up the number of white people in the class. The more white people the larger the curve; and any class that was more than 25% white was a free A. This is because white people are spoiled, lazy and stupid. :(
And those are just are the ones who go to Grad school for Engineering. You cannot imagine how spoiled, lazy, and stupid I am being a white dude in undergrad.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 09:02:13 AM
Around here, it's definetly un-PC.
I suppose it depends on specificity. If you're railing against the humble mom & pop fresh local produce market, then yeah that'd be pretty un-PC. But criticizing medium to large-sized corporations is hardly un-PC.
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 09:47:54 AM
To me, though, PC is more a refusal to recognise there are downsides to progress, if the term has any meaning at all.
Man that is an interesting definition.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 09:47:54 AM
To me, though, PC is more a refusal to recognise there are downsides to progress, if the term has any meaning at all.
Man that is an interesting definition.
I can hear your frown a continent away. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:01:34 AM
I suppose it depends on specificity. If you're railing against the humble mom & pop fresh local produce market, then yeah that'd be pretty un-PC. But criticizing medium to large-sized corporations is hardly un-PC.
Criticizing? Sure. Saying they should not exist and everything should be publicly owned is a pretty radical view.
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 09:47:54 AM
To me, though, PC is more a refusal to recognise there are downsides to progress, if the term has any meaning at all.
Man that is an interesting definition.
I can hear your frown a continent away. :lol:
I might actually agree I just had never thought of it like that before. :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 09:02:13 AM
Around here, it's definetly un-PC.
I suppose it depends on specificity. If you're railing against the humble mom & pop fresh local produce market, then yeah that'd be pretty un-PC. But criticizing medium to large-sized corporations is hardly un-PC.
I agree. Damn it.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
Criticizing? Sure. Saying they should not exist and everything should be publicly owned is a pretty radical view.
It's radical, but as long as you don't flat-out use Marxist jargon you're not going to set off many PC alarms.
I believe there should be some sort of exam and certificate in parenting for anyone planning to breed.
the hate people have for monsanto is ridiculous and based on fear of gmo, ignorance of law, and/or belief in misrepresented facts
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
It's radical, but as long as you don't flat-out use Marxist jargon you're not going to set off many PC alarms.
Straight Marxism, no chaser is not going to set off any PC alarms.
To me PC is all about protected classes and oppression by The (white) Man. It includes things like African American instead of black, First Nations instead of Indian, Asian instead of Oriental. It also includes things like the belief that discrimination is the only cause of differing outcomes, and the refusal to accept the possibility that different groups can have different strengths and weaknesses. For example when when then Harvard president Lawrence whatshisname suggested that the paucity of female physicists might be explained by different brain wiring or whatever, the reaction against that was pure PC.
It is PC for Yi to say that since he isn't white.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
Criticizing? Sure. Saying they should not exist and everything should be publicly owned is a pretty radical view.
It's radical, but as long as you don't flat-out use Marxist jargon you're not going to set off many PC alarms.
How exactly do you define "PC". In my opinion it's mostly a conservative victim complex. The ideas that somehow liberals are preventing conservatives from speaking the truth.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
Criticizing? Sure. Saying they should not exist and everything should be publicly owned is a pretty radical view.
It's radical, but as long as you don't flat-out use Marxist jargon you're not going to set off many PC alarms.
How exactly do you define "PC". In my opinion it's mostly a conservative victim complex. The ideas that somehow liberals are preventing conservatives from speaking the truth.
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
The really funny part is neither of them ever do.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
The really funny part is neither of them ever do.
Indeed not, the truth is not PC.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
Criticizing? Sure. Saying they should not exist and everything should be publicly owned is a pretty radical view.
It's radical, but as long as you don't flat-out use Marxist jargon you're not going to set off many PC alarms.
How exactly do you define "PC". In my opinion it's mostly a conservative victim complex. The ideas that somehow liberals are preventing conservatives from speaking the truth.
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
What's really funny is that conservatives have this enormous victim complex and like to think they don't.
I think that, on a fundamental level, it's up to the individual.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 11:16:12 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
Criticizing? Sure. Saying they should not exist and everything should be publicly owned is a pretty radical view.
It's radical, but as long as you don't flat-out use Marxist jargon you're not going to set off many PC alarms.
How exactly do you define "PC". In my opinion it's mostly a conservative victim complex. The ideas that somehow liberals are preventing conservatives from speaking the truth.
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
What's really funny is that conservatives have this enormous victim complex and like to think they don't.
That's un-PC to say.
I guess there are varying definitions here. To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended). I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2014, 10:44:21 AM
the hate people have for monsanto is ridiculous and based on fear of gmo, ignorance of law, and/or belief in misrepresented facts
Not entirely. There are some real ethical questions about patenting lifeforms.
At any rate, most of my beliefs are rather offensive to someone or other.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 09:59:17 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 28, 2014, 08:35:55 AM
When I was in graduate school I used to count up the number of white people in the class. The more white people the larger the curve; and any class that was more than 25% white was a free A. This is because white people are spoiled, lazy and stupid. :(
And those are just are the ones who go to Grad school for Engineering. You cannot imagine how spoiled, lazy, and stupid I am being a white dude in undergrad.
It boggles the mind. :(
Quote from: Savonarola on March 28, 2014, 12:05:56 PM
It boggles the mind. :(
Yeah :(
Oh by the way I started asking around FE test and it seems they have prep classes here and you can take it whenever you want since it is computerized now. Things that would have been cool to mention to me when I first enrolled :P
Maybe I can take the prep class and take it before my last semester, though I understand the thing has like a 40% failure rate which is probably much higher for white people.
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2014, 11:55:20 AMNot entirely. There are some real ethical questions about patenting lifeforms.
At any rate, most of my beliefs are rather offensive to someone or other.
but that's not an ethical question monsanto is confronted with. that's for the patent agencies
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 12:14:48 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 28, 2014, 12:05:56 PM
It boggles the mind. :(
Yeah :(
Oh by the way I started asking around FE test and it seems they have prep classes here and you can take it whenever you want since it is computerized now. Things that would have been cool to mention to me when I first enrolled :P
Maybe I can take the prep class and take it before my last semester, though I understand the thing has like a 40% failure rate which is probably much higher for white people.
When you see those failure rates don't panic; remember that all Civil Engineers take that exam.
(Hey, there's another un-PC thought...)
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
I guess there are varying definitions here. To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended). I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.
So if someone says that it's not PC to say blacks are inferior it means he believes it to be true but something he can not say?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2014, 09:28:39 AM
I doubt that's true.
There definitely is a common body of "politically correct" thoughts, the large majority of which are fairly uncontroversial to the vast majority - even Admiral Yis. For example I'm pretty sure Yi believes in the equality of the races, in private enterprise, and private property.
Equality under the law hardly qualifies as PC. If one were to say "I think a white man and a black man should get the same sentence for murder," the likelihood someone will say "oh, you're so PC" is very low.
PC is more inclined to be in favor of equality of outcome than equality of process.
Politically correct ideas are ideas that we wish were correct. Otherwise they would be just correct, without any qualifiers.
:hmm: I guess I also just answered the title question, now that I think of it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
I guess there are varying definitions here. To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended). I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.
So if someone says that it's not PC to say blacks are inferior it means he believes it to be true but something he can not say?
Okay, throw out the "believes to be true" part then, Raz. I guess you can make a politically incorrect remark that you don't truly believe. Jeez.
Women are good for 3 things:
Pleasuring men
Blasting crotchfruit out of their babycannons
Making sandwiches.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 12:23:26 AM
I think that any kind of transsexualism that manifests as an urge for "gender reassignment surgery" is a pathology rather than a gender or a sexual orientation. The urge to massive self-mutilation or castration is not a healthy one. :ph34r:
That said I try very hard to be civil and polite with every transsexual I have ever met, and have purposefully avoided expressing my opinion on the matter.
What is your least PC belief?
I believe that all religions are human construction and that God does not exist.
Not really un-pc in Quebec, but in rural Alberta or Southern US, that would certainly warrant crucifixion.
Quote from: viper37 on March 28, 2014, 12:57:28 PM
I believe that all religions are human construction and that God does not exist.
Not really un-pc in Quebec, but in rural Alberta or Southern US, that would certainly warrant crucifixion.
I think you'd more likely get shrugged off and ignored than crucified for that these days in the South. And if you were in a university town, someone would probably buy you a drink.
Quote from: viper37 on March 28, 2014, 12:57:28 PM
I believe that all religions are human construction and that God does not exist.
Not really un-pc in Quebec, but in rural Alberta or Southern US, that would certainly warrant crucifixion.
That is not even a little bit un-PC. Even in the Southern US.
Then Viper would yell WAR EAGLE! In Tuscaloosa. Then he'd be swinging from a lamp post.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 01:04:19 PM
Then Viper would yell WAR EAGLE! In Tuscaloosa. Then he'd be swinging from a lamppost.
Okay now that might happen.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2014, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2014, 11:55:20 AMNot entirely. There are some real ethical questions about patenting lifeforms.
At any rate, most of my beliefs are rather offensive to someone or other.
but that's not an ethical question monsanto is confronted with. that's for the patent agencies
Something doesn't become ethical just because you can get away with it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 12:53:11 PM
Women are good for 3 things:
Pleasuring men
Blasting crotchfruit out of their babycannons
Making sandwiches.
Who does the laundry? :huh:
Quote from: sbr on March 28, 2014, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 12:53:11 PM
Women are good for 3 things:
Pleasuring men
Blasting crotchfruit out of their babycannons
Making sandwiches.
Who does the laundry? :huh:
Child labor.
I believe that a certain subset of lefties has basically swapped the irrationality of religion from the past to the irrationality of pseudoscience of the present.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 01:12:14 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 28, 2014, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 28, 2014, 12:53:11 PM
Women are good for 3 things:
Pleasuring men
Blasting crotchfruit out of their babycannons
Making sandwiches.
Who does the laundry? :huh:
Child labor.
That's what your wife has been in.
I don't believe in a generally open franchise. I believe the electorate should be small and qualified in some manner, I'm essentially anti-democratic.
Quote from: The Larch on March 28, 2014, 01:13:23 PM
I believe that a certain subset of lefties has basically swapped the irrationality of religion from the past to the irrationality of pseudoscience of the present.
You mean like the anti-vaccinators or the organic everything crowd?
Quote from: viper37 on March 28, 2014, 12:57:28 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 12:23:26 AM
I think that any kind of transsexualism that manifests as an urge for "gender reassignment surgery" is a pathology rather than a gender or a sexual orientation. The urge to massive self-mutilation or castration is not a healthy one. :ph34r:
That said I try very hard to be civil and polite with every transsexual I have ever met, and have purposefully avoided expressing my opinion on the matter.
What is your least PC belief?
I believe that all religions are human construction and that God does not exist.
Not really un-pc in Quebec, but in rural Alberta or Southern US, that would certainly warrant crucifixion.
Not remotely controversial in the public discourse of most Western countries. Stand by the side of the main mosque in Mecca and shout it, and suddenly you're the worst person alive for about two minutes.
Dissing religion, or making fun of it, is in my reading of the rather loose term PC fine, even encouraged. Saying that abortion is murder is not. Saying slavery is bad is unconditionally the right thing to say. Saying "Well, at least you got to travel" is so un-PC that you will be hanged.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 28, 2014, 01:13:23 PM
I believe that a certain subset of lefties has basically swapped the irrationality of religion from the past to the irrationality of pseudoscience of the present.
You mean like the anti-vaccinators or the organic everything crowd?
Anti vaccination is mostly anti science which is a different beast altogether, but I think you can include certain attitudes towards the pharmaceutical industry in a similar category, which mixes that with anti corporate attitudes. A lot has to do with the preachiness they sometimes spouse.
Regarding organic farming, it's ok per se, but it becomes ridiculous when taken to extremes such as those exposed by things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_farming).
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2014, 01:05:40 PMSomething doesn't become ethical just because you can get away with it.
but it's not a matter of "getting away with it." that language implies monsanto acted unethically. it is not unethical to apply for a patent, have your work product patented, then protect that patent. you can blame the public agencies all you want, but i don't see how monsanto has acted objectively unethical - patenting organisms has been going on for decades. are all scientists and private businesses who have their patents unethical simply because their patent involved an organism?
the united states government has decided that one can patent specific, modified, seeds. these seeds would never have existed without research and expense. the seeds are not natural, as in they are not created from nature. monsanto created them and patented them legally and without underhanded tactics.
Quote from: The Larch on March 28, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 28, 2014, 01:13:23 PM
I believe that a certain subset of lefties has basically swapped the irrationality of religion from the past to the irrationality of pseudoscience of the present.
You mean like the anti-vaccinators or the organic everything crowd?
Anti vaccination is mostly anti science which is a different beast altogether, but I think you can include certain attitudes towards the pharmaceutical industry in a similar category, which mixes that with anti corporate attitudes. A lot has to do with the preachiness they sometimes spouse.
You're lucky. Anti-immigration, anti-vaccination and the "alternative" crowd have joined hands here. It's like Breivik with blogs. Now this is un-PC, but I wouldn't mind if the lot of them did get abducted by aliens, died from vaccinations or got viciously murdered by immigrants.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2014, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2014, 01:05:40 PMSomething doesn't become ethical just because you can get away with it.
but it's not a matter of "getting away with it." that language implies monsanto acted unethically. it is not unethical to apply for a patent, have your work product patented, then protect that patent. you can blame the public agencies all you want, but i don't see how monsanto has acted objectively unethical - patenting organisms has been going on for decades. are all scientists and private businesses who have their patents unethical simply because their patent involved an organism?
the united states government has decided that one can patent specific, modified, seeds. these seeds would never have existed without research and expense. the seeds are not natural, as in they are not created from nature. monsanto created them and patented them legally and without underhanded tactics.
It can be unethical to apply for a patent, like if you're patenting a living thing. Ethics and the law are two different things. There are all sorts of things that a government can allow people to do that aren't ethical.
Yes, anyone who patents an organism is, by definition, unethical. Doesn't matter if it's a scientist, a big company or a guy in his garage.
No sweet, sweet southern 'tang for Zanza. :weep:
Quote from: Norgy on March 28, 2014, 01:46:40 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 28, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 28, 2014, 01:13:23 PM
I believe that a certain subset of lefties has basically swapped the irrationality of religion from the past to the irrationality of pseudoscience of the present.
You mean like the anti-vaccinators or the organic everything crowd?
Anti vaccination is mostly anti science which is a different beast altogether, but I think you can include certain attitudes towards the pharmaceutical industry in a similar category, which mixes that with anti corporate attitudes. A lot has to do with the preachiness they sometimes spouse.
You're lucky. Anti-immigration, anti-vaccination and the "alternative" crowd have joined hands here. It's like Breivik with blogs. Now this is un-PC, but I wouldn't mind if the lot of them did get abducted by aliens, died from vaccinations or got viciously murdered by immigrants.
Well, maybe the first two. It would be unwise to give the immigrants a taste for human flesh.
When I find myself in complete agreement with Neil, I get a bit scared. Yet it is comforting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 01:59:38 PM
No sweet, sweet southern 'tang for Zanza. :weep:
:frusty: The thread, Yi. The thread.
Maybe the comment still works in this thread. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
I guess there are varying definitions here. To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended). I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.
So if someone says that it's not PC to say blacks are inferior it means he believes it to be true but something he can not say?
Okay, throw out the "believes to be true" part then, Raz. I guess you can make a politically incorrect remark that you don't truly believe. Jeez.
So a politically incorrect statement is simply one that isn't true?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 02:29:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
I guess there are varying definitions here. To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended). I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.
So if someone says that it's not PC to say blacks are inferior it means he believes it to be true but something he can not say?
Okay, throw out the "believes to be true" part then, Raz. I guess you can make a politically incorrect remark that you don't truly believe. Jeez.
So a politically incorrect statement is simply one that isn't true?
No.
My most un-PC belief is now that arguing with Raz is like voluntarily go for waterboarding.
It's almost as bad as arguing with grumbler or tall Canadian grumbler.
Arguing with Raz can be like pushing a test tube cleaner up your urethra.
So orders of magnitude better than arguing with grumbler.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 03:07:44 PM
It's almost as bad as arguing with grumbler or tall Canadian grumbler.
:lol:
I'm just trying to understand your world, guys.
Most of the time, I think I am too.
I'm about as clued in as the Log Lady in Twin Peaks.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 03:07:44 PM
It's almost as bad as arguing with grumbler or tall Canadian grumbler.
:face:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 03:27:54 PM
Arguing with Raz can be like pushing a test tube cleaner up your urethra.
So orders of magnitude better than arguing with grumbler.
:face:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 05:24:40 PM
I'm just trying to understand your world, guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pPUmv3U2XY
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 28, 2014, 01:16:25 PM
I don't believe in a generally open franchise. I believe the electorate should be small and qualified in some manner, I'm essentially anti-democratic.
How would you restrict it?
I'm with Otto. Democracy sucks.
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2014, 09:08:27 AM
Where to start. :hmm:
What's with this recent confessional bent Languish is now taking, first opinions on onions, 'whats on you mind' and now this!
It's a worrying trend; not sure I'm too keen on getting views of the inner workings of other languishites. :(
Maybe we could just stick to arguing to toss about bits of military kit and bashing each other over the head with raspberry flavoured strawmen?
Next thread: "What's Your Most Shameful Secret?" :)
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2014, 01:58:16 PMIt can be unethical to apply for a patent, like if you're patenting a living thing. Ethics and the law are two different things. There are all sorts of things that a government can allow people to do that aren't ethical.
Yes, anyone who patents an organism is, by definition, unethical. Doesn't matter if it's a scientist, a big company or a guy in his garage.
how is it unethical? if patents weren't allowed for seeds/plants, then there would be little incentive to invest large sums of money into modifying plants
and ethics and law are both shaped by the morals of society
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2014, 09:08:27 AM
Where to start. :hmm:
What's with this recent confessional bent Languish is now taking, first opinions on onions, 'whats on you mind' and now this!
It's a worrying trend; not sure I'm too keen on getting views of the inner workings of other languishites. :(
Maybe we could just stick to arguing to toss about bits of military kit and bashing each other over the head with raspberry flavoured strawmen?
If it helps, I didn't actually care. :hug:
Quote from: Brazen on March 28, 2014, 10:36:42 AM
I believe there should be some sort of exam and certificate in parenting for anyone planning to breed.
I love you so much.
I really have no true anti-PC beliefs, all my beliefs are tremendously PC.
Other than there's no such thing as bisexuality. You can't stand on both sides of the plate when you're up at bat, dammit. Either you dig the cock, or you dig the pooty. "Lulz Imma bisexual" is a fucking cop-out for fags who don't want to admit to themselves that they're honest and truly cocknibblers.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2014, 07:49:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2014, 01:58:16 PMIt can be unethical to apply for a patent, like if you're patenting a living thing. Ethics and the law are two different things. There are all sorts of things that a government can allow people to do that aren't ethical.
Yes, anyone who patents an organism is, by definition, unethical. Doesn't matter if it's a scientist, a big company or a guy in his garage.
how is it unethical? if patents weren't allowed for seeds/plants, then there would be little incentive to invest large sums of money into modifying plants
and ethics and law are both shaped by the morals of society
It is unethical because it is distasteful and sets a dangerous precedent.
Oh, and fuck it; I'm a cultural relativist. My side of the planet: good and civilized. Your side of the planet: fucked up third world voodoo bullshit.
Brown and yellow people don't get a pass for their bullshit because they're "unique" or how their "culture" is "special".
God Bless America, the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Age of Reason. The other side of the planet can go fuck itself.
Quote
Other than there's no such thing as bisexuality. You can't stand on both sides of the plate when you're up at bat, dammit. Either you dig the cock, or you dig the pooty. "Lulz Imma bisexual" is a fucking cop-out for fags who don't want to admit to themselves that they're honest and truly cocknibblers.
Women?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2014, 08:41:57 PM
Other than there's no such thing as bisexuality. You can't stand on both sides of the plate when you're up at bat, dammit. Either you dig the cock, or you dig the pooty. "Lulz Imma bisexual" is a fucking cop-out for fags who don't want to admit to themselves that they're honest and truly cocknibblers.
While it is often used as a cop out, I don't see why there couldn't be people with attraction to both sexes.
You'd think there are plenty enough historical (ancient Greek, Arab, Japanese sexual practices) and personal (Cary Grant, Brando, Marlene Dietrich) examples of it that no one would dismiss it out of hand.
Also; prison.
Quote from: garbon on March 28, 2014, 09:19:05 PM
While it is often used as a cop out, I don't see why there couldn't be people with attraction to both sexes.
There are people with an attraction to reaching orgasm, regardless of the context.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 09:20:31 PM
Also; prison.
I rest my case.
What does it matter what goes on in peoples minds, all that matters is how people conduct themselves in the public space.
New un-PC belief: women are stupid, with fundamentally unsound cognition.
Or maybe it's just under-25s. I think that's actually been proven. But it could be a combination. -_-
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
What does it matter what goes on in peoples minds, all that matters is how people conduct themselves in the public space.
Says the guy that pisses in bushes on the side of the road. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2014, 11:07:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
What does it matter what goes on in peoples minds, all that matters is how people conduct themselves in the public space.
Says the guy that pisses in bushes on the side of the road. :P
:D
And now to bed.
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2014, 11:58:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2014, 11:07:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 28, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
What does it matter what goes on in peoples minds, all that matters is how people conduct themselves in the public space.
Says the guy that pisses in bushes on the side of the road. :P
:D
And now to bed.
:hmm: You ought to see your doctor about that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 09:24:27 AM
I'm getting a chuckle out of the PC posters struggling with the question. :P
It's very difficult I'm generally PC. It's just having good manners.
I'd also say in the UK there's definitely two brands of political correctness. One is what we're all talking about roughly. Then there's another which is basically whatever someone speaking happens to disagree with - normally speed cameras or health and safety - which they boldly preface with a declaration that it's not very politically correct, but...
I wonder if Yi counts me as PC or not. :hmm:
I vote no.
I think you might have to spend some time north of the Mason Dixon to really drink from the fountain of PC.
It might be good manners, but it also surrenders the dialogue in western civilization to unserious waterheads, who definitely don't have the best interests of civilization at heart.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 28, 2014, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
Buddah's going to be pissed.
I think that most forms of variants sexuality should still be considered paraphilic disorders. While I'm not suggesting that homosexuals should be persecuted or treated differently, I still think it fits the criteria of a paraphilic disorder at it is a variant behavior that causes difficulties for person both mentally and physically. I also think that since homosexuality is something you are born with, parents will have a choice if their children will be homosexual or not in the future and it will become extremely uncommon.
The rational utility-maximixing option would seem at first blush to be bisexuality.
Being by would just double the number of people you can be rejected by. No thanks.
I would rather give money to an animal shelter than a homeless shelter.
Quote from: Kleves on March 29, 2014, 10:06:00 AM
I would rather give money to an animal shelter than a homeless shelter.
That's not un-PC at all. That's simply the right thing to do.
Quote from: Kleves on March 29, 2014, 10:06:00 AM
I would rather give money to an animal shelter than a homeless shelter.
I get that. Homeless shelters don't gas the homeless. In, uh, modern America at least.
Columbia put ours in a concentration camp.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 29, 2014, 03:10:16 PM
Columbia put ours in a concentration camp.
Is it: Meowschwitz?
Homeless people, not animals. :P
Meh.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 04:13:01 AMThe jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.
I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.
AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 28, 2014, 09:28:39 AM
I doubt that's true.
There definitely is a common body of "politically correct" thoughts, the large majority of which are fairly uncontroversial to the vast majority - even Admiral Yis. For example I'm pretty sure Yi believes in the equality of the races, in private enterprise, and private property.
Equality under the law hardly qualifies as PC. If one were to say "I think a white man and a black man should get the same sentence for murder," the likelihood someone will say "oh, you're so PC" is very low.
PC is more inclined to be in favor of equality of outcome than equality of process.
That depends on what you mean by "politically correct". If you consider it to be a caricature of what silly progressive people believe or shibboleths of the left and right wings (in terms of being for/against) then you'll have very different things to agree/disagree with than if you consider it to mean the commonly accepted positions to hold on the prevailing discourse.
I think Grey Fox is right; few things are as politically correct in the West as free enterprise. Even the alleged Socialists have embraced except on the very fringes.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
The really funny part is neither of them ever do.
Never do what? Speak the truth, or prevent others from speaking it?
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
I guess there are varying definitions here. To me PC is avoiding saying something you believe to be true because it will cause a large number of people to be offended (or pretend to be offended). I've always thought that political correctness in some form existed both on the right and left, though more often on the left.
I think that's a pretty good definition, though I'd say it's about "going beyond the pale" rather then simply being about being offended. I'd say that seriously de-emphasizing the military or paying tribute to the brave men and women in uniform would be un-PC across both right and left wings of the US political spectrum, and not just because of people being offended (though people tend to get offended nonetheless).
Yes, their economic systems aren't as robust as free-market capitalism, but they are completely subordinated to the state. The ability to maintain the economy on a war footing, to control the press, and to use whatever tactics they choose in regards to war and espionage are advantages of that type of government.
Of course, Westerners realize freedom has a cost and will curtail it when deemed necessary. See Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans, or the transformation of our press into a propaganda machine during any serious wars.
I think Jake's on the nose. I remember once I referred to our volunteer military as essentially mercenary, and the offense taken was vivid and immediate. It's not true in every individual case, but other than maybe Ank--I think he re-ups because he genuinely enjoys his work--and perhaps a few others, practically every one of the many servicepeople I've ever met has has done so, at least in part, for one of the reasons I went to law school: economic stability, and perceived or real lack of options to attain it otherwise.
Turns out the military actually provides that, but... :P
Anyway, I didn't even mean it as a value judgment. It's far superior to a conscript military, in moral terms and in terms of effectiveness (theoretically, anyway, although obviously our military hasn't been "effective" in over 60 years). But I suppose it generates vitriol because calls into question a central assumption of American life, which is the automatic heroism of everyone who just puts on a uniform.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2014, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 04:13:01 AMThe jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.
I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.
AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.
Yes, no doubt that authoritarian war machines are less efficient economies in general, but if you can keep the populace needs to a minimum, then you can waste less resources on idle consumption, and more resources on the military. After all, filet mignon turns to shit really quickly, whereas tanks will last for decades.
But one wouldn't be terribly surprised if a tank made in the PRC fell apart as soon as it tried to do anything more strenuous than run over a protestor, thanks to graft and corruption.
Besides, you know what else lasts decades? Entire cities' worth of highrises with no occupants.
Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2014, 10:05:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2014, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 04:13:01 AMThe jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.
I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.
AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.
Yes, no doubt that authoritarian war machines are less efficient economies in general, but if you can keep the populace needs to a minimum, then you can waste less resources on idle consumption, and more resources on the military. After all, filet mignon turns to shit really quickly, whereas tanks will last for decades.
But why are we limiting the comparisons to total war? Total war is just part of the equation. Still, in any case the free world has a winning record in both total and cold wars, and in coexistence. I see nothing about the PRC or Putin's fumbling at a new Imperial Russia to put any doubt to that.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2014, 10:14:43 PM
But why are we limiting the comparisons to total war? Total war is just part of the equation. Still, in any case the free world has a winning record in both total and cold wars, and in coexistence. I see nothing about the PRC or Putin's fumbling at a new Imperial Russia to put any doubt to that.
I guess the original point was that the free world benefited from the rapid pace of innovation being possible. That may not persist at a pace fast enough to significantly stay ahead of non-innovative industrial-spying authoritarian military machines.
I think y'all are using a much too broad definition of PC. There are a specific group of people who use the term non-ironically (or used to) and specific statements they use it for.
If you say God doesn't exist no one is going to say, gosh that's not very PC.
The free world doesn't do coexistance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2014, 11:14:17 PM
I think y'all are using a much too broad definition of PC. There are a specific group of people who use the term non-ironically (or used to) and specific statements they use it for.
If you say God doesn't exist no one is going to say, gosh that's not very PC.
The only people who used "politically incorrect" non-ironically were bona fide Maoists and their Soviet equivalents. There may have been a tiny segment of English speaking English hard leftists who used it seriously for a brief moment, but any currency it had in Western leftist circles was ironically and/or with self-deprecation; and that too, was only for a brief moment before it was seized with great relish as a term of dismissal by those who wish to register opposition to PC.
The number of people who ever used "politically correct" in earnest, approvingly, and in English is vanishingly small.
Perhaps it wasn't used non-ironically but pretty sure it's always been used to refer to progressive beliefs(or their caricatures).
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2014, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 04:13:01 AMThe jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.
I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.
AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2014, 02:33:01 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2014, 11:14:17 PM
I think y'all are using a much too broad definition of PC. There are a specific group of people who use the term non-ironically (or used to) and specific statements they use it for.
If you say God doesn't exist no one is going to say, gosh that's not very PC.
The only people who used "politically incorrect" non-ironically were bona fide Maoists and their Soviet equivalents. There may have been a tiny segment of English speaking English hard leftists who used it seriously for a brief moment, but any currency it had in Western leftist circles was ironically and/or with self-deprecation; and that too, was only for a brief moment before it was seized with great relish as a term of dismissal by those who wish to register opposition to PC.
The number of people who ever used "politically correct" in earnest, approvingly, and in English is vanishingly small.
The term may be a caricature now, but the concept very much exists. Some opinions which are not necessarily off-base are pretty dangerous to express in "polite company".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Silly person. And what's worse: a silly, optimistic, narrow-minded round eye who honestly believes democracy is for everybody, when clearly it's not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Silly person. And what's worse: a silly, optimistic, narrow-minded round eye who honestly believes democracy is for everybody, when clearly it's not.
It works for Taiwan. Besides our old enemy is back, Russia. No need to get hysterical over China anymore.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 09:29:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Silly person. And what's worse: a silly, optimistic, narrow-minded round eye who honestly believes democracy is for everybody, when clearly it's not.
It works for Taiwan. Besides our old enemy is back, Russia. No need to get hysterical over China anymore.
Does America alway need one big enemy to focus on?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 09:29:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Silly person. And what's worse: a silly, optimistic, narrow-minded round eye who honestly believes democracy is for everybody, when clearly it's not.
It works for Taiwan. Besides our old enemy is back, Russia. No need to get hysterical over China anymore.
It took Taiwan decades to get over Chaingism, and the US to bankroll it.
Russia's a sideshow, and completely irrelevant to US geopolitical priorities. Just a really big Venezuela.
Russia's a sideshow.
We can't base foreign policy on your sexual hangups with Asian chicks.
Sure we can.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 10:10:22 AM
Sure we can.
There's not enough bondage gear in the world to "contain" China.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 10:06:29 AM
We can't base foreign policy on your sexual hangups with Asian chicks.
Hell, maybe Chinese foreign policy is being part driven by their response to the way Money's 'handled' asian women. :P
I don't have any un-PC belief.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2014, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2014, 04:13:01 AMThe jury is still out on that. The PRC has certainly been making huge strides in the past 30 years without adopting those policies. The Nazis and Soviets both were formidable war machines.
I'm quite fond of China, but the internal problems are too much for it to outcompete the West. No way, no how. The corruption and waste alone is monumental, and the processes for correcting errors are orders of magnitude more liable to being subverted compared to the West.
AFAIK, the Nazis have a formidable reputation primarily because of the timing, their own propaganda, and a need to rehabilitate them somewhat after their defeat. Their economic organization was terrible. Can't speak too much to the Soviets, but my impression that they had some serious economic inefficiencies as well.
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
That's why everybody here thinks you are a retard.
Quote from: mongers on March 30, 2014, 09:31:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 09:29:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Silly person. And what's worse: a silly, optimistic, narrow-minded round eye who honestly believes democracy is for everybody, when clearly it's not.
It works for Taiwan. Besides our old enemy is back, Russia. No need to get hysterical over China anymore.
Does America alway need one big enemy to focus on?
Everybody does. Look at what happened to Europe after the Cold War.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 09:54:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 09:29:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 07:51:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 06:16:29 AM
I still think China will become a democracy eventually.
Silly person. And what's worse: a silly, optimistic, narrow-minded round eye who honestly believes democracy is for everybody, when clearly it's not.
It works for Taiwan. Besides our old enemy is back, Russia. No need to get hysterical over China anymore.
It took Taiwan decades to get over Chaingism, and the US to bankroll it.
Russia's a sideshow, and completely irrelevant to US geopolitical priorities. Just a really big Venezuela.
Russia's a sideshow.
Totally agree.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 28, 2014, 01:16:25 PM
I don't believe in a generally open franchise. I believe the electorate should be small and qualified in some manner, I'm essentially anti-democratic.
How would you restrict it?
Income tax payers?
People that don't have a stake in the well-being of the Nation should not be allowed to vote.
Quote from: Brazen on March 28, 2014, 10:36:42 AM
I believe there should be some sort of exam and certificate in parenting for anyone planning to breed.
This is a liberal conspiracy to reduce our national birth rate.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 28, 2014, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 28, 2014, 01:16:25 PM
I don't believe in a generally open franchise. I believe the electorate should be small and qualified in some manner, I'm essentially anti-democratic.
How would you restrict it?
I wouldn't restrict it so much as I'd eliminate the whole concept as we have it now that voting is an intrinsic right of citizenship. Instead, voting would be seen as a special privilege that could be earned, and no one would be entitled to it by default.
I'd offer a few different paths, but would want some combination of both effort and competency. It'd be a balancing act, so maybe a lot of effort can justify it with diminished competency and vice versa.
As a baseline I'd envision some sort of national service organization that oversees volunteer work. You'd need to be a member of this organization for two years, during which time you'd be doing volunteer work on a strictly part time basis. It would be a level of commitment such that you could still expect to be a full time student or a full time worker and still be a productive member of the organization. It would mostly just coordinate activities with existing volunteer organizations and such and wouldn't have a huge amount of bureaucracy itself. To be eligible to participate in this organization you would need to have a High School diploma or GED (in fact without those, I'd not want a path to you ever voting.)
So that's sort of the base line model for me, take anyone with a HS equivalent education and they give two years of part-time service and they can now vote. There would be ways to reduce this.
So for example you're a well off entrepreneur, you have no college degree but you do have a HS diploma. You also have a lot of money. I'd say you could pay a fee equal to the labor-value of the two years of part time volunteer work and that counts as your required effort and now you can vote. I'd imagine this number at current wage averages might work out to $20,000-$25,000 or so. Perhaps make these fees payable to the service organization to fund ongoing activities.
Maybe a college degree holder only needs to do one year of service as they are generally more demonstrably competent than someone with just a HS diploma. But I'd also like to see colleges push membership in the service organization in general, or even make it part some of the degree program so we'd already have two years out of some college graduates.
Maybe a highly credentialed professional like a doctor or lawyer would just need to file an application and they'd get their voter card, or professions that are geared heavily toward the public interest (teachers, maybe, fire fighters, police officers.) But even people who I'd let in just based on those criteria it still wouldn't be default, you'd have to fill out an application and request your voter card. That's important as it weeds out all the people that might hold those sort of credentials but who are too lazy to give a shit.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 30, 2014, 02:09:13 PM
Maybe a college degree holder only needs to do one year of service as they are generally more demonstrably competent than someone with just a HS diploma.
Oooooooooooooh, I don't know about that one. :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2014, 09:40:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2014, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 28, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
That's funny, Liberals thinks conservatives are preventing them from speaking the truth.
The really funny part is neither of them ever do.
Never do what? Speak the truth, or prevent others from speaking it?
Yes
My most un-PC belief is that I think public schooling is a net negative for society.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2014, 05:03:50 PM
My most un-PC belief is that I think public schooling is a net negative for society.
:hmm:
Cause parents do it so much better? :lmfao:
I don't think home schooling should be legal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 30, 2014, 05:18:25 PM
Cause parents do it so much better? :lmfao:
Yes? :P
It's actually the Prussian system that's the problem. Obviously it can't be replaced with nothing, but literally anything else would be better than this.
:hmm:
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 05:20:58 PM
I don't think home schooling should be legal.
I would not allow you to vote. :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 05:20:58 PM
I don't think home schooling should be legal.
I would not allow you to vote. :lol:
over 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution as it is, If you got rid of schools and enforced homeschooling you'd be so screwed.
I just want to replace them with something better.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 05:20:58 PM
I don't think home schooling should be legal.
I would not allow you to vote. :lol:
I was homeschooled briefly, my sisters were homeschooled briefly, and many of my cousins were homeschooled. All were disasters. It is a completely terrible idea unless you are an aristocratic landowner who can hire Voltaire to teach your heir. Public school imparts values of citizenship and critical thinking that those who homeschool with an ideological agenda purposefully avoid.
If you could beat parents for their kids stupidity kids would be a lot smarter :D
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2014, 05:33:03 PM
If you could beat parents for their kids stupidity kids would be a lot smarter :D
See that used to be the hallmark of the Prussian system, the element that is missing today.
In fact, Squeelus would be sent to a penal battalion along with Ide and the other assmunch who liked that Her movie.
Never saw it.
I attended Public School, Private School, Private Religious (Catholic) and Home Schooling and can say that Spellus is an idiot.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2014, 05:27:45 PM
I just want to replace them with something better.
Like what? Non-public schools?
Quote from: katmai on March 30, 2014, 06:15:54 PM
I attended Public School, Private School, Private Religious (Catholic) and Home Schooling and can say that Spellus is an idiot.
It took all that training to find that out?
:lol:
No.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2014, 07:18:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2014, 05:27:45 PM
I just want to replace them with something better.
Like what? Non-public schools?
Public schools of a different style.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 05:31:53 PMPublic school imparts values of...critical thinking...
:lol:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 30, 2014, 08:33:08 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 05:31:53 PMPublic school imparts values of...critical thinking...
:lol:
Hell, I criticized as much of it as possible whenever I could. They didn't like 7th graders questioning the curriculum.
You guys are forgetting that my family is Mormon. My cousins are legion.
I give up on you.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenergybibleinoneyear.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fpilate-washes-hands.jpg&hash=a54c9d784455f30852ea0cf9a50a2d1b71ec6812)
A Mormon Cossack. Twice as useless.
I don't think that education policy should be built around the rare parents who are not fundamentalists and are extremely hard-working and decide to home school their children. I know from personal experience that some children are cheated out of a real education by their apeshit parents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 30, 2014, 09:08:49 PM
A Mormon Cossack. Twice as useless.
That's a Schindler's List quote, right?
An educated Mormon Cossack. Titty Sprinkles.
I just wanted to make sure you compared me to an aging one-armed Jewish factory worker who gets shot in the head in the middle of the street.
We all have our dreams.
How about property?
People without property cannot vote.
The housing business would explode.
So, what, like New York City would have about as much electoral power as Iowa?
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2014, 09:24:24 PM
How about property?
People without property cannot vote.
The housing business would explode.
Yeah, that worked out so well for us last time.
It would actually be kind of funny to see how that would work in a modern economy. I wonder how agribusiness would use its complete dominance over the nature's political system?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 11:03:58 PM
It would actually be kind of funny to see how that would work in a modern economy. I wonder how agribusiness would use its complete dominance over the nature's political system?
It would be sort of like cambodia under the khmer rouge, only with adm in charge.
:lol:
Well you'll work harder with a gun at your back
for a bowl of GMO corn a day
Only people over 30 with no children should be able to vote. Public office should be restricted to those who have successfully carried out a World Conquest in a P'dx game. Extra votes for one-province minors.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 09:22:46 PM
I just wanted to make sure you compared me to an aging one-armed Jewish factory worker who gets shot in the head in the middle of the street.
Spoiler alert! :mad:
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2014, 09:24:24 PM
How about property?
People without property cannot vote.
The housing business would explode.
See, but that's a bad thing. You want to reduce the value of people's houses, not increase it.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 09:09:45 PM
I don't think that education policy should be built around the rare parents who are not fundamentalists and are extremely hard-working and decide to home school their children. I know from personal experience that some children are cheated out of a real education by their apeshit parents.
Yup, we're in 100% agreement here. I also think homeschooling should be banned. I've made this argument in many other places, and immediately you hear a story about a parent with a 20-year history as a teacher who also hires tutors for subjects they don't know very well and also makes sure the kid gets ton of extracurricular activities with other kids etc etc. I don't know that there are any numbers on this, but I'd bet off hand this is the exception to the rule. All of the parents I've known who have home schooled their children have either:
1. Had disaster kids who are extreme behavior problems and were never going to graduate public school.
2. Been religious ultra fundamentalists who wanted to make sure their kids were never exposed to "dangerous ideas" in public schools.
3. Been incompetent coddlers that think their fabrege egg children would shatter if exposed to the cruelty of public school.
I don't think policy should allow for any of those, and I'm quite fine in just saying no home schooling in order to prevent it. Societal policy should not be set based on the exceptions to the rule, but the actual reality for the majority of home schooled children.
I also think there are many private schools that should be abolished as many of them are just worthless. The Catholic run schools are generally good, as are a few of the better known non-Catholic private schools, but there's a ton of private schools that are barely schools at all and many of those need to be abolished.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 09:26:17 PM
So, what, like New York City would have about as much electoral power as Iowa?
I'd never advocate a property requirement for general voting, but I'd be perfectly fine with property tax levies being something that only property owners in the tax district can vote on. In general when the States used to have a property requirement to voting, they had clauses that allowed people with significant assets who didn't happen to own real estate to vote as well. So New York City wouldn't be afflicted the way you might think.
I imagine you'd end up with some very low property tax rates.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2014, 09:41:56 AM
I imagine you'd end up with some very low property tax rates.
Not necessarily. I know of several communities where basically only rich people live that have through the roof millage rates.
The exceptions for those who don't own property would have to be pretty huge these days I'd imagine. Loads of people, even rather rich ones, choose to rent rather than buy.
Also...I'm unsure on this but aren't the laws about owning an apartment a bit different to owning a house? It technically being a very long lease or somesuch since you don't actually own the land.
I guess there could be a market for buying worthless tracts of land you've no intention of ever visiting in order to get the vote. Which would not be good for the countryside....
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2014, 09:24:24 PM
How about property?
People without property cannot vote.
The housing business would explode.
Does this include property that your right hand possesses?
"homeschool" was how i managed to drop out of 7th and 9th grade :D
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2014, 09:53:29 AM
Also...I'm unsure on this but aren't the laws about owning an apartment a bit different to owning a house? It technically being a very long lease or somesuch since you don't actually own the land.
I think that is a British thing; I remember Brazen mentioning something about it. It's definitely not the case in the US, though, as far as I know.
The British have a lot of really long duration leases, that are much more common than in the United States. For example you might build a house on land you lease for 99 years. We do have some of that in the United States, it's just much more common to not do it. My extended family actually (originally my great-grandfather, then grand-father, then/now my uncle) has a 400 acre farm that was built and operated on leased land, it was owned by a timber company literally since the 1800s. The timber company was never interested in selling it completely but my family was able to lease it on a very long term lease back in the 1940s--and it's still in the family. Since the farming operations precludes much forest growth as long as they keep the lease the land won't have much value as a timber operation anytime in the future--but the timber company has put some gas wells on the property and it gets 100% of the royalties, my family as leaseholders have no right to it. Although I still wonder why they didn't just sell the land ages ago but retain the mineral rights (not an uncommon scenario.)
But apartments/condos are a different thing altogether. A condo is basically you buying the right to what they call in the real estate business a "box of air" and you own everything that is in it, and you have a right to occupy that "box of air." But the land itself is typically owned collectively by the condo association. In theory your condo could be torn down and you required to move, but that would be a scenario in which the condo association in total would have had to have voted for a sale of the land and you'd be probably well compensated for it.
That's a condo. A co-op is different, a building that has a co-op, you don't actually own any physical real estate. Instead you own a "share" of the co-op, and the "share" entitles you to residency rights in a unit of the co-op. Most condos and co-ops are designed to be perpetual, but in most States they could ultimately be dissolved and the property in total sold off--but it'd have to be a decision the co-op or condo voted on collectively. But it'd be majority rules, so some people who might not want to move may be forced to accept the terms of a buyout. This varies though, in some states it's not so easy to get people out that way, even if a majority of the association wants to sell lock, stock, and barrel.
Condos are great real estate options for people like me; a single income family that doesnt want to go through all the bullshit of marriage for the sake of a second income in order to buy a fucking stand-alone home.
And I pay for Mexicans to mow my lawn, so I dont have to do it.
Yeah, I think condos get an undeserved bad rap by a lot of people. The biggest issue a lot of people have with them are the association fees. But, those are really no different from the costs of maintaining a single family home. Except with a single family home you might need to suddenly do $30,000 in repairs when your entire roof needs replaced whereas the condo if you've got the fee structure correct and the reserve fund properly funded you're making a relatively predictable monthly payment. Although I have heard horror stories about "special assessments" in condos that have kept their fees artificially low for years and years and then have to suffer a reckoning when a big expense comes up and the reserve fund has no money to pay for it.
In exchange for having to pay the monthly fee (which again, isn't materially much different from the non-mortgage costs of any home), you also get a lot of stuff included that homeowners have to contract for separately (maintenance of some parts of the building, lawn care etc.)
Oh, and the condos that allow the units to be rented out can sometimes take a turn for the worse if a lot of the unit owners are land lords and they rent out to trashy tenants. That's also a risk with any residential neighborhood though, where a land lord might rent out to undesirables.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 31, 2014, 12:53:44 PMOh, and the condos that allow the units to be rented out can sometimes take a turn for the worse if a lot of the unit owners are land lords and they rent out to trashy tenants.
:whistle:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 31, 2014, 09:39:36 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 30, 2014, 09:26:17 PM
So, what, like New York City would have about as much electoral power as Iowa?
I'd never advocate a property requirement for general voting, but I'd be perfectly fine with property tax levies being something that only property owners in the tax district can vote on. In general when the States used to have a property requirement to voting, they had clauses that allowed people with significant assets who didn't happen to own real estate to vote as well. So New York City wouldn't be afflicted the way you might think.
In Vancouver and iirc all other municipalities in BC all non resident business owners get to vote in municipal elections. If they are also residents they dont get to vote twice. :D
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 31, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 31, 2014, 12:53:44 PMOh, and the condos that allow the units to be rented out can sometimes take a turn for the worse if a lot of the unit owners are land lords and they rent out to trashy tenants.
:whistle:
:lol: No shit. I've been dealing with that bullshit beneath me for 6 years now.