ilovefuzz.com

Dude you are such a dumb fuck it's not even funny. You're pretentious and you believe you're write for the simple fact that you think I'm wrong. I don't need to argue my point to you because your opinion holds no value in my life. You would attack my religious beliefs and then say I'm not courageous because I don't want to prove you wrong.

You have proved nothing to me other than you are a dipshit like I stated. So re read above and get on with your life.

John wrote: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

jwar wrote:Dude you are such a dumb fuck
You're pretentious
you're write
you are a dipshit

Block list updated. The glories of the Internet.

OK, dudes, please, let's try to keep it civil.

The truth hurts and people like to curse when they stub their toes. It's only human, but being only human is pretty lame. The world keeps getting uglier though, and we can shrug and put our heads in the sand or we can speak up when we see something wrong. I'm not going to keep quiet when I see a problem, but I don't need to get heated about it or sink to potty mouth because I know I'm right. Logix and chill

Faldoe wrote:[

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.

I think you're right insofar as the bolded is concerned. You realize that you're just dismissing an entire side with your capitalization, right? That's what I take issue with, because it's reductive and stupid.

Also, it's certainly possible to be an idiot while saying things that are palatable to me politically -- don't mistake diagnosis for disagreement.

D.o.S. wrote:Also, it's certainly possible to be an idiot while saying things that are palatable to me politically -- don't mistake diagnosis for disagreement.

Broken clocks are right twice a day!

I have certain beliefs or at least suspicions that would get me lynched by a PC (sorry) mob. I know there are factually accurate details that, taken out of context, reflect badly upon certain minority groups. If we point out just those details then we can demonize them, but what is our motivation for doing so? People like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Donald Trump exploit those non-sequitorial anecdotes to prop up their otherwise flawed and deeply prejudiced arguments. Progressive thinkers often feel like we can’t even mention these things because we will get lumped in with the Coulters by the typically younger, outraged generation of liberals. This is the pernicious effect of PC dogma, but it is a very minor problem (and it vanishes if we ignore it), and it is not the cause of the rise of reactionary fascism. Bigots have been stewing away in their cesspools all this time ever since the Civil Rights movement. Now the mainstream media Trumpeting is calling them out of their caves.

The problem is that we don't have an indignant conservative on here to combat the smart-ass liberals (of which I am one).

I might have to start stumping for Hillary in this thread just for the sake of keeping things interesting.

We had dubkitty in days of yore.


He got better.

psychic vampire. wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't ignore that. For sure there are republicans that would like to see society based upon scripture: Did you see that Rachael Maddow segment about some GOP presidential candidates were at a anti-gay conference? That doesn't mean all conservatives want that. Also, you see a lot of people on the right or center-right/Libretarian advocating the first amendment. If they really wanted to be solely for Christianity they'd be trying to outlaw any criticism of their faith.

Despite this country being founded on Christianity, there are some powerful and important aspects to our constitution that keep it somewhat secular. Or not a theocracy.

John wrote:
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.
[/quote]

You're assuming that left only has occasional bouts of bullshit. It's also a false dichotomy. You have to settle for the lesser of two evils. That keeps people trapped in this left/right binary. People need to look at things at a case-by-case basis, as well as deeply examine their own belief structures and ask whether they really came to those beliefs willingly of they just kind of fell into them or accepted them. Or did a reactionary move - which so many people do - and just choose the side opposite of their family/peers, etc.

D.o.S. wrote:

Faldoe wrote:[

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.

I think you're right insofar as the bolded is concerned. You realize that you're just dismissing an entire side with your capitalization, right? That's what I take issue with, because it's reductive and stupid.

I don't follow. What do you mean my "capitalization?" You mean my critique of the Left? If so, I'm not making a reactionary move and going from the left to the right, and I'm not trying to, again, throw the baby out with the bath water regarding the good aspects of the left. I'm saying the left (I'm using the binary language, I know) isn't perfect either and needs to be able to be self aware/self reflective and critical for it to stay relevant. Any movement or ideology that can't be self critical will fail.

With that explanation, I agree.

Faldoe wrote:[
Despite this country being founded on Christianity, there are some powerful and important aspects to our constitution that keep it somewhat secular. Or not a theocracy.

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams (in Article 11 or the Treaty of Tripoli)

"Where the white women at?!"
-not Thomas Jefferson