ilovefuzz.com

Interesting how this discussion of Trump's "sarcasm" turned into a discussion about the nature of humor and political correctness.
But here's the thing... Donald Trump is not a comedian. He obviously doesn't know how to read the room if that room isn't full of
people who value fear over fact and charisma over substance.

Donald Trump doesn't know how to tell jokes... Donald Trump is the joke. The medium is the message. Meta/meme...blahblahblah.

Why did Donald Trump attend the Roger Waters concert in Mexico City?
He wanted to make sure that Mexico paid for The Wall.

I kid.

Rusty... your discussion of "instinct" and what is "natural" seems to be extrapolated from some sort of reading of Nature. One outcropping of that
methodology is Social Darwinism. Which is basically a partial reading of a section of Nature and extrapolating excuses for inhumane actions.
It's good to proceed with caution with that, since concepts like "racial purity" and eugenics have also branched out from such thinking.

If you want to take Nature as your cue for what is "natural" in the political or social sphere, then you should be in favor of "Political Correctness"
as a cooperative force that mediates individual behavior within established group norms (thereby updating group norms). Human beings are social creatures
who concurrently exist as individuals. So every culture has several systems that mediate between the group and the individual. Although human beings are
mammals and primates, they are also capable of cooperative group action, empathy and intellectual thought. So it is "natural" for humans to think about
what is, and project an image of what should be that they then try to live up to. And isn't group consensus that mediates individual experience the foundation
of democracy?

It is true that "stereotyping" is a foundational survival mechanism for human beings. If a group of hunters that hunted near some yellow grasses
were attacked by a lion, then each time the surviving hunters approached similar yellow grasses undulating in the wind they'd imagine that it
wasn't the wind, but lions moving through the grasses. To operate under that "stereotype" insures a greater probability of future survival from lion attack.

The problem is that human society is far more complex than that. If you work in a service industry, then your "lion in the grass" might be my
Saturday night out getting drunk and acting a fool. So people react like their lives and livelihoods are attacked when they feel "threatened".

On the one hand it might feel to some like society is being "fractured" by ever smaller group designations. If the Q in LGBTQ is "questioning"...
then isn't that ironic™ (Alanis Morissette, ©1996)? It seems like a category made by Groucho Marx for those who don't want to be categorized.

But then again... it's about self-categorization. The "fracturing" is actually more like "articulating", as groups of people identify themselves
and let everybody else know how they want to be referred to. If you don't want to develop categorical statements about your own identity,
then you don't have to. I think some of the anger some white people feel is when they perceive that their individuality is being stripped by being
placed in a larger, faceless, and perhaps historically problematic category that used to be called the "silent majority".

I also heard an interesting comment recently saying basically "Equality feels like oppression for those who have unknowingly benefited
from a system that has been working in their favor for years."

Seance wrote:I also heard an interesting comment recently saying basically "Equality feels like oppression for those who have unknowingly benefited
from a system that has been working in their favor for years."

Like a lot of what you said, but like this a lot.

People aren't suddenly more easily offended than they used to be. Racism and homophobia didn't suddenly become bigger problems than they used to be; it's just that people who don't experience these things are finally being forced to hear about it in mainstream conversations.

Also, just a point, the creation of race, from its very inception, was always about creating power dynamics and allowable instances of dehumanization. Race became more strictly regimented in America as a way of ensuring that white indentured servants and black slaves would not join together in rebelling against slave owners. And it worked.

psychic vampire. wrote: People aren't suddenly more easily offended than they used to be. Racism and homophobia didn't suddenly become bigger problems than they used to be; it's just that people who don't experience these things are finally being forced to hear about it in mainstream conversations.

Yes. Mainstream conversation facilitated by the internet and cellphones. Situations can't remain hidden,
like they used to. Now people can record video of police brutality, or share information about the unfair and
discriminatory practices of regional companies.

psychic vampire. wrote: Also, just a point, the creation of race, from its very inception, was always about creating power dynamics and allowable instances of dehumanization. Race became more strictly regimented in America as a way of ensuring that white indentured servants and black slaves would not join together in rebelling against slave owners. And it worked.

True. The poor are set against each other as a way to keep the status quo so that those at the top can
remain up there. The frustrations of the working poor of all colors are real. The problem is that the
"answers" those working poor respond to aren't always the ones that actually address their situation.

It is perhaps cathartic to blame immigrants for a person not having a job, but decades of policies giving
corporate tax breaks for offshoring jobs while at the same time advocating that "capital is speech" regardless
of where a corporation has its headquarters (to avoid paying US taxes)—that's the real problem. And for 90% of
the last century the US government (through the CIA) was actively destabilizing the governments of Central and
South America. So from that perspective the immigration into the US from regions where the US supported right-wing
death squads tends to make a bit of sense.

psychic vampire. wrote:

Seance wrote:I also heard an interesting comment recently saying basically "Equality feels like oppression for those who have unknowingly benefited
from a system that has been working in their favor for years."

Like a lot of what you said, but like this a lot.

Yeah. I wish I remembered the name of the woman who said that. It felt like a profoundly insightful comment.

Is this possibly where you read that, Seance?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-boe ... 60662.html

Seance wrote:I also heard an interesting comment recently saying basically "Equality feels like oppression for those who have unknowingly benefited
from a system that has been working in their favor for years."

Seen that comment before. What it doesn't clarify is whether "equality" refers to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.
The 2 are at odds.
I'm def all about that equal opportunity. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT WITH YOU HARRY.
Outcome? Nope. Enforcing equal outcomes undermine competition, performance.
Unfortunate outcomes feel like oppression to the losers in life who are unwilling to own their limitations, failures, poor decision making and plain bad luck.
A brain surgeon who graduates top of the class will be in higher demand than one who graduates at the bottom. It is foolish beyond measure to attribute sex & race of each graduate being as important, if not more so than their ability to perform.

psychic vampire. wrote: Like a lot of what you said, but like this a lot.

People aren't suddenly more easily offended than they used to be. Racism and homophobia didn't suddenly become bigger problems than they used to be; it's just that people who don't experience these things are finally being forced to hear about it in mainstream conversations.

Also, just a point, the creation of race, from its very inception, was always about creating power dynamics and allowable instances of dehumanization. Race became more strictly regimented in America as a way of ensuring that white indentured servants and black slaves would not join together in rebelling against slave owners. And it worked.

People are visibly more offended thanks to the age of bloggers, web 2.0 and clickbait/outrage models. Global social media provides the platform where manufacturing drama and pandering to outrage is currently the most effective marketing tool. Yes, bigotry exists. But it is also invoked where it doesn't exist, being projected and/or used as subterfuge for sinister purpose wrapped in righteousness.
Racism, sexism and homophobia are now injected and used to frame debate on every topic, ultimately turning inflammatory, defensive and escalating. It's a cycle of fear & loathing, testament to the rise of chronic depression and dissatisfaction with the direction in which the wind blows.
Now someone inclined to say "actually sexism, racism etc against white people doesn't exist because power plus privilege..." doesn't understand the difference between macro vs micro power dynamics. I've seen such sentiment predictably expressed in tandem with *that equality quote* used as justification for bigotry and cruelty toward wypipo.

TL;DR too much typing into the void.

That time "Donkey Punch" was said live on faux news and concisely framed the absurdity of PC culture

Chankgeez wrote:Is this possibly where you read that, Seance?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-boe ... 60662.html

I never read the Huffington Post. But perhaps this is the source that I encountered through a process of quotational filtration.

Yeah, I just threw that quote you posted up for a Google search and there wasn't an exact match, but that was the closest.

rustywire wrote: Unfortunate outcomes feel like oppression to the losers in life who are unwilling to own their limitations, failures, poor decision making and plain bad luck.
A brain surgeon who graduates top of the class will be in higher demand than one who graduates at the bottom. It is foolish beyond measure to attribute sex & race of each graduate being as important, if not more so than their ability to perform.

By this rationale Donald Trump is a four-time loser in life since his corporations have filed for Chapter 11 four times.

Governments help people. It's what they do. Were the US G.I.s who returned from WWII and got free secondary educations at taxpayer expense
"losers in life who were unwilling to own their own limitations"? Are corporations that get tax breaks losers?" Are those who survived the Great
Depression through federal government programs "losers at life"? The fact is that it is in the best interest of a society to have a populace with
a diversity of skills to weather change. The skills that worked in the industrial revolution made the US strong. Now those skills have to adapt or
perish, because the situation has changed.

Using race and sex as one factor among many to try to right decades (or centuries) of injustice and lack of opportunity (and therefore outcome)
seems pretty sensible. It's okay if you don't agree with that. But that's the rationale behind that.

He has walked away from bankruptcy 4 times and not gone broke. That's hardly the definition of a loser.

Read this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconno ... 7bcf396f7a

I'm not saying I like Trump but he's no dummy with business. People that say so, probably don't know the first thing about running a big business.

Not to discount Trump's resilience or whatever as a businessman (obviously, he's not afraid to keep tryin'), but what does 4 bankruptcies say about his business judgement?

Also, not to mention the people he's disregarded on his way to those 4 bankruptcies. I don't see that as a positive attribute.

Also, big business isn't big government. Yeah, they have some similarities, but also a whole mess of differences.

Seance wrote:

rustywire wrote: Unfortunate outcomes feel like oppression to the losers in life who are unwilling to own their limitations, failures, poor decision making and plain bad luck.
A brain surgeon who graduates top of the class will be in higher demand than one who graduates at the bottom. It is foolish beyond measure to attribute sex & race of each graduate being as important, if not more so than their ability to perform.

By this rationale Donald Trump is a four-time loser in life since his corporations have filed for Chapter 11 four times.

Governments help people. It's what they do. Were the US G.I.s who returned from WWII and got free secondary educations at taxpayer expense
"losers in life who were unwilling to own their own limitations"? Are corporations that get tax breaks losers?" Are those who survived the Great
Depression through federal government programs "losers at life"? The fact is that it is in the best interest of a society to have a populace with
a diversity of skills to weather change. The skills that worked in the industrial revolution made the US strong. Now those skills have to adapt or
perish, because the situation has changed.

Using race and sex as one factor among many to try to right decades (or centuries) of injustice and lack of opportunity (and therefore outcome)
seems pretty sensible. It's okay if you don't agree with that. But that's the rationale behind that.

I couldn't agree more.

RE bankruptcy: the only reason he's been able to do that four times is because you guys have weak as fuck laws about that. He'd be masturbating strenuously in a gutter in Sydney on meth binge now if he'd have gone broke like that down here.

Or, you know, escaped to Spain like Skasey did.

Also rusty, I should apologise for me retort to you earlier.
Read my post again in John Oliver's voice with a whole bunch if sarcasm and it'll make more sense.
Wasn't lecturing you, just taking the Micky.
We're pretty much on the same page.

Iommic Pope wrote: RE bankruptcy: the only reason he's been able to do that four times is because you guys have weak as fuck laws about that. He'd be masturbating strenuously in a gutter in Sydney on meth binge now if he'd have gone broke like that down here.

I'd like to point out that he only "went broke like that" once. And he got out of that by knowing what he was doing.

As much as I like talking shit about Trump as the next guy, I find that most criticisms of him based on his business practices are based on ignorance rather than anything else.

Granted, as Iommic pointed out, he probably wouldn't have to options to do the things he did the way he did if the government spent more time policing corporate actions (which will never happen in any universe, by the way) but that doesn't make him stupid like many seem to want to make him out to be.

He might be a bastard that screwed a lot of people.
He might be a loudmouth that has trouble with being civil in public.
But he is not stupid.
He wouldn't be a presidential nominee if he was, as distasteful as that may be.

jrfox92 wrote: He might be a bastard that screwed a lot of people.

That's one of my main criticisms of how he practices business.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG0Kqk35tjw[/youtube]