ilovefuzz.com

I'm not going to argue anymore. There is no point in it. We're all damned either way.

The world is flat and life is meaningless anyway.

I just wanna know who I can vote for to make vaccinations mandatory.

It's one of the issues that I'm interested in too.

But not voting isn't going to help either. That's what sucks! I actually didn't vote the first time Obama was elected because I didn't like either candidate. But honestly, not, I'd rather have Obama for 8 more years.

For instance. Brownback, the Governor of Kansas won by a fucking landslide last election, but every person I talk to hates that motherfucker. So how the hell did he win??? By such a large margin too. It makes me think all this shit is just rigged and we are being lied to more than we'll ever know.

I keep joking about doing a write in for the Terminator. Maybe it's time.

D.o.S. wrote:I think if you use the phrase 'political correctness' in 2016 you should be castrated and barred from communicating with anyone else for being totally fucking braindead, and you're probably just a blight on productive society by virtue of your very existence.

How's that for 'non-offensive' language? Because typically when people rail against political correctness, they're actually railing against the idea that their notions should be challenged and open to critique, funnily enough.


See, it's easy enough to be inflammatory on any side of this issue. What it isn't, generally, is productive.

This, yes.

Faldoe, again i think you attack a strawman and not reality. I always feel flustered when people attack identity politics and so-called SJWs, because personally i agree that identity politics are awful, but it is apparent we are coming to this conclusion from massively different perspectives or experiences or backgrounds of thought. There are certainly are "liberals" who wring their hands and will bow to whatever oppressed voice is speaking in order to avoid accusations of bigotry, but also this a sort of myth to be invoked whenever necessary to attack people who might challenge an established world view. There is no cohesive, homogenized black experience (or female, gay, religious, trans, whatever experience) and anyone who tries to claim such is peddling their own political project to you. Plenty of folks on the "left" (or post-left) are aware of this, and are critical of it. Plenty of various leftists are denouncing tyhese tactics and writing very insightful works about it. But, and here's the thing, sometimes in order to be critical of something, you have to understand whereit came from. Identity politics came from a sensible idea: Many people who can be shoe-horned into certain groups on bases of race/gender/sexuality/ethnicity/beliefs are more likely to experience certain events in their lives. It is not definite, it is not absolute, there is no universal identity experience, for many reasons, but there are probabilities of experience. Histories persist, and culture shapes people. Also, never should these points be taken as value judgments on the inherent goodness/badness of people who fit a group, just a reminder that structural power is a thingb that is capable of shaping a person's life. Of course, the natural conclusion of identity politics has been (for a while, now) a strengthening of state apparatuses, and that's where I disagree.

Alternatively, i am just an ape on shrooms and i can't wait to get kicked out of this show i amplaying next week.

John wrote:

Faldoe wrote:What exactly is the "average black experience?" Is there for sure a set, definable one?

There are averages. Carson does not fit into those averages.

Faldoe wrote:The rise of right-wing and far right movements in the US and in Europe is a result of political correctness.

This is incredibly stupid. It's like saying the rise of sexual assaults is the result of the rise of hemlines on skirts.

Not at all. Your example is a blaming the victim scenario. The right-wing groups - which often end up being far right in that they also think in too simplistic of terms - at least ask the question the Left does not. The problem is the kernel of truth within the right-wing critiques is mired in all kinds of other BS that is often extreme. Often Nationalistic but there is also the aspect of their nationalistic stance in that they want their country to remain open to discourse. Not necessarily "we don't want brown people," but "we don't want people (that happen to be brown) that hold views/want society organized based upon their religion"

D.o.S. wrote:

Faldoe wrote:
White liberals are too scared to say anything critical of any "people of color's" movements - even if in good intentions in terms of critique - for fear of being called a racist. So liberals tend to just side with the groups and messages coming from the left and accepting the narratives without question. The rise of right-wing and far right movements in the US and in Europe is a result of political correctness.

LMAO that's bullshit. The rise of right wing politics on a national level almost always correlates to, briefly, perceived erosion of national identity in the face of worldwide concerns. That's the historical model, and that's true today.

See my response to John. I agree that often that is the case, that these groups are saying "we don't want people not like us," i.e people of color, which is wrong. The baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water though. There is legitimate reasons to want to keep one's country the way it is when that means open to political discourse, freedom of speech/expression, etc.

D.o.S. wrote:I think if you use the phrase 'political correctness' in 2016 you should be castrated and barred from communicating with anyone else for being totally fucking braindead, and you're probably just a blight on productive society by virtue of your very existence.

How's that for 'non-offensive' language? Because typically when people rail against political correctness, they're actually railing against the idea that their notions should be challenged and open to critique, funnily enough.


See, it's easy enough to be inflammatory on any side of this issue. What it isn't, generally, is productive.

How far Left of you This is exactly what we are seeing in the US and on college campuses: "if you say what I don't like, you should be killed, you're an idiot, etc." How about dialoguing and providing some evidence to your claims? The Gulag for those we disagree with.

Political correctness is a rhetorical tool that can be used by anyone. For sure it has been used by the right to rail against the left for some silly reasons - language towards gays, for instance.

Political Correctness: the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

What the Left is doing now is using claims of anything they deem disagreeable is racist or Islamaphobic, without providing good arguments as to why, but "because I (we) said so." I think most of this is done unconsciously. They think they are on the correct/righteous side and are defending whatever group it is but they're actually, in a way, dehumanizing them by saying certain people shouldn't be subject to the same level of scrutiny and responsibility as others. Isn't it that what makes us human is our commonality in that we are all capable of similar things - our ability to use reason, etc?

I'm not conservative and for a long time thought things were that simple that we on the left were right: believing in climate change, LGBT rights, women's right to choose, etc. and that the right was a bunch of racist uneducated idiots, but things aren't that simple and things are not like that. Because we're all human we're all far much more similar that different. It's a dangerous trap to think you and whatever movement/party you belong to are right and "the other" is wrong. Everyone falls into that trap at one point or another.

As the political divide grows, each "side" thinks the other is wrong and will keep engaging in this shadow boxing and looking over the valid points each side makes. When it comes to being critical of BLM, critiques of Islam, the left is failing hard and they are only painting themselves into a corner.

Same with the right, hence Donald Trump.

Faldoe wrote:Not necessarily "we don't want brown people," but "we don't want people (that happen to be brown) that hold views/want society organized based upon their religion"

This does ignore that a lot of white americans do want a society organized based on religion, just their religion and not someone else's.

I don't think it's just white americans. I see people of all races pushing their own agendas all the time. You can't lump everyone into one basket.

Good God. This thread makes my head hurt.

jwar wrote:But not voting isn't going to help either.

Actually it will. If every Trump supporter did not vote, that would help tremendously. If you don't know, don't vote.

Faldoe wrote:

John wrote:

Faldoe wrote:What exactly is the "average black experience?" Is there for sure a set, definable one?

There are averages. Carson does not fit into those averages.

Faldoe wrote:The rise of right-wing and far right movements in the US and in Europe is a result of political correctness.

This is incredibly stupid. It's like saying the rise of sexual assaults is the result of the rise of hemlines on skirts.

Not at all. Your example is a blaming the victim scenario. The right-wing groups - which often end up being far right in that they also think in too simplistic of terms - at least ask the question the Left does not. The problem is the kernel of truth within the right-wing critiques is mired in all kinds of other BS that is often extreme.

I will take a bag of Leftist popcorn with the occasional kernel of bullshit over a sack of unpopped right-wing crap with the occasional kernel of truth, all day every day. Freedom sandwich with a random hair in it is way better than bitter totalitarian gruel with a small lump of sugar.

jwar wrote:Good God. This thread makes my head hurt.

After decimating your illogic on the last page, I'm not surprised.

Actually, you shouldn't vote because it's worthless from a statistical standpoint.

Ok. So because I refuse to argue with you, you decimated me. I'm glad you live in a fairy tale land. If I argued with every dipshit I didn't agree with I'd have no time to enjoy life.


Here's a thought have your opinion and I'll have mine. If you don't like mine then go fuck yourself.

Ugh, speaking "sensibly" and "with restraint." So booooooring. What's the point of talking politics, if you're not trying to make someone cry?

Strange Tales wrote:Actually, you shouldn't vote because it's worthless from a statistical standpoint.

See, if I could convince everyone of this, then I'd run the zoo!

jwar wrote:Ok. So because I refuse to argue with you, you decimated me. I'm glad you live in a fairy tale land. If I argued with every dipshit I didn't agree with I'd have no time to enjoy life.


Here's a thought have your opinion and I'll have mine. If you don't like mine then go fuck yourself.

Well I proved your reasoning to be incorrect, and your response was not to refute or prove me wrong but to say you're done arguing or whatever. Thus I can take that as a face-saving way of accepting that you were wrong, or I can take that as a refusal to address the logical challenge.

If you want to talk about fairy-tale land, we could get into your religious beliefs, but that's not necessary. However my logical refutation of your assertions has nothing to do with Tinkerbell and everything to do with sane, rational analysis. Your most recent response is typical of someone who is wrong but lacks the courage to admit it and would rather devolve into hostility and insults. You may continue to prove my point or you could bow out of the adult discussion like you originally said you would. It's a free country and a free internet so do whatever you like. Just don't vote please.