Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MSC

  1. Being knowledgeable of those conflicts and making those conflicts your own are two completely different things. I'd say the analogy holds quite well. On one side, you've got Canadians doing their own thing, on the other side you've got Americans trying to dictate to Canadians on what is and isn't okay to say. I imagine there was a time in France, where a French person could be shot by a German person for not capitulating to anti-semetici rhetoric. So yeah, the analogy holds pretty well. Both involve a bully pretending to be a victim because other countries won't put its issues first and foremost over their own. More Nukes too, more cities blown up and wiped off the face of the earth too. So Americans get to dictate how others live and use their own dialects of English because they have more? How is that an argument. They have more school shooters and serial killers too. Is that a point in the Americans favour? Would you care to explain how we should all be keeping score of things so we know whom is king? How does that work exactly? You're missing the point, I said that to illustrate that age discrimination is unacceptable whether you are young or old. One of those things did happen here, iNow made a rude comment toward MigL based on his age and has even went so far as to say all from a certain time, are hateful. I mentioned the other to make clear that I found both unacceptable. You and iNow have ignored too much of what I have said and seem to be suggesting that American English and it's history should be more important to Canadians than their own. In what world is that reasonable? iNow doesn't even deem it worthy of him responding or explaining his point of view to me, that alone should tell you something. This has gone too off topic. I really can't be bothered with a new thread about language policing and respecting the context of another culture. I've said what I wanted to say on the matter. But I didn't realize I would be debating within an environment where only Americans get to have the final say on what is and isn't important within our collective moral discourse. Dyou know what is truly the worst extreme, practiced by both sides of the American political camps? Anti-intellectualism. This idea on each side that suggests to question the rhetoric, means you're either stupid or immoral. On the one hand, you've got people calling you stupid for saying we need to do more to help minority groups. On the other, you've got people for calling you stupid for thinking critically about language policing. Either way, being critical gets you judged. iNows entire attitude of "oh you'll just be ignorant or arrogant to disagree with me on whatever I say" is evidence of this. I even mentioned my wife's views on this, but I guess since she is a woman, that's not worth addressing to either of you? I told you once already, don't treat me like I am stupid. You've carried on, by expecting me to buy any of this knee jerk nonsense about Americans having a very vague "more everything". Left, right, I don't give a shit about that anymore. Because each side is where truth goes to die, just in a different way and both sides spend so much time being outraged at and suspicious of the other, that people are too busy being offended to think critically, solve problems, and minimize creating new ones. I'm not talking about your motivations. Just the consequences of your actions. As for your motivations, I could care less but they aren't as mysterious as you seem to think they are. Oh yeah, holding you accountable isn't self righteous. Particularly when I'm defending someone else, not myself. But then what would you know about accountability? You can't even admit the 1963 bit wasn't rude. I'll be back if you ever figure out how to substantively counter argue against anything I've said. But I won't hold my breath.
  2. Yes, I'm well aware. But if you needed to ask me the question, then I don't feel respected by you at all. Yes I know. I'm European. Speak to me like I'm stupid again, and it will be the last I speak with you. Not got the time to put up with crap like that. My point; is that differences in language are just as important as differences in dialect. To speak nothing of the reactionary cost of language policing with people in the same country as you, what about the reactionary cost when they aren't even in the same country? My point with the Spanish portion, was that to most English speakers, saying "negro" is wrong. Yet it is just how you say Black in Spanish. If it sounds ridiculous to come down on a Spanish person for using a word in their own language, that has a different connotation somewhere else, then it's similarly ridiculous to come down on a Canadian for using a word in their dialect that also does not have a negative connotation to it. I'm sorry; this chat is starting to come across more like an ultimatum of The New American way, as dictated by the loudest of young people who haven't sat in either an ethics or linguistics classroom, or you're just a racist. The irony of which should not be lost on anybody. Access to the relevant information of what Americans want them to learn in order to be linguistically acceptable in the USA? Where is this forum exactly? Why do Americans get to push the Agenda of their college students onto the rest of the world so pedanticly? Also why do you or iNow get to speak for all Americans? My wife is also American; yet she doesn't believe that language policing beyond borders is acceptable either. She doesn't use the term "coloured" and uses the PC terms here in the USA. Doesn't mean she is going to visit my family in the UK and call someone homophobic because they ask her for a cigarette but say "You got a spare fag on you?". I really wish people would pick their battles better and take the time to critically think about how to figure out the ways and means of real moral progress instead of assuming that good intent is enough. We are far more than the sum of our intentions, iNows language policing might be well intended, but it comes at a cost and is a good example of the ends not justifying the means. Yeah this was how I interpreted that too. Projecting American problems and their solutions onto other places is a nono for me. I've never once heard of Canada having a widespread lynching problem in its South. I don't get why the border has to be porous in the Americans favour either? Because TV and movies? Please, I wasn't born yesterday. If they could actually reach an intellectual consensus with each other I'd be more inclined to listen. But it's extremism on both sides here in the USA and the centrists in the middle are just part of the "fuck both your factions" faction. Oh so everyone else has to explain themselves to you, but not the other way around? You started this ridiculousness by trying to push someone from a different country as you, to accept your verdict, delivered rudely, that they were wrong to use language the way they did because "American way better". Oh and before you go "where was I being rude?" The "1963 called" line was pretty rude. This whole thread revolves around protected characteristics, something which I see as something we have a duty to protect. But you don't get to pick and choose which ones are more worthy of your protection. They are all worthy of it. That's why they are called protected. Ethnicity, Gender AND age. It irks me just as much when the old disrespect the young as when the young disrespect the old. Oh stop with the self-righteousness. You informed us of nothing but your own preferences and willingness to get right down into the dirt with those you perceive to already be slinging it. Even when they weren't. This is one of those situations where, even though someone is arguing for views similar to your own, you just want them to shut up because they are harming the cause in the long run.
  3. France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomarΓ© un cafΓ© negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.
  4. Contracts were signed ages ago to pay in other currencies. Contracts are a bitch huh? Doesn't it suck when people have written evidence of what your promises are?
  5. This is also a pet peeve of mine. I also don't like it when dialectical differences are ignored. Nor do I like Americans trying to dictate to me how to speak English. My Nana still says colored. Considering that she works for, ministers for and tends to the homeless of all descriptions, I'm pretty sure she isn't racist. I'd only really have a problem if she started saying the N word. Which tbh, I feel as if some of the outrage directed towards people who use old words or dialectical colloquialisms but without in combination with bigoted behaviors, is as proxy for the people who do have those behaviors but are usually underground or not around us very often. So quite often we see this phenomenon in language use where a word, isn't considered a pejorative in usage until someone refuses not to use it upon request or demand. In conclusion; ALUMINIUM! πŸ˜† Only by the ignorant and hateful? You've obviously never met my grandmother. πŸ˜† I agree with the second paragraph, not the first. Also did I detect a hint of anti-canadian animosity in your first sentence? Might want to check yourself a little iNow. Lest you veer into hypocritical territory.
  6. Russia cuts off Gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria, claiming others could be next. This fuckin guy. Now he's weaponising energy demands and trying to divide NATO on their consensus to give more aid to Ukraine. Edit: Link takes you to NBC. Just for clarity.
  7. That's the thing that worries me; it's not just Putins enemies we have to worry about, but NATOs enemies too, within and without Russia. Let's say some group decides to assassinate Putin, seize power in Russia and then uses NATO as a scapegoat. As conspiracy theories go, if Putin were assassinated by anyone, there will be countless conspiracy theories trying to explain it. Blaming NATO or the USA specifically is probably one of the least out there versions of the sorts of things people will think and say happened. Now, some here may be of the opinion that Putin needs to be made an example of. Which is completely understandable given what we know, but one person's example is another person's martyr. Nomatter what you wish to happen, make no mistake, Putin being assassinated would be a very dangerous and uncertain situation that could unfold a number of ways, most of then badly. Better that he is just arrested and charged with war crimes or crimes against the Russian people, than assassinated. Just for the safest approach.
  8. Apparently, because it's racist to point out the demographic makeup of the court... somehow? I don't know anymore. It's the same level of pedanticness that turns people off of the PC thing. Besides intent; there is also the spirit in which something is said or done. Ultimately this was all done in the spirit of inclusion and equity. As for the objections, I don't know how you argue it is with the same spirit as the above, when what is being objected to is inclusive speech and an open desire for more fairness. It certainly wasn't for Ted Cruz.
  9. MSC

    Political Humor

    I dunno Z, I think your one is better πŸ˜† 🀣
  10. It would appear Macron won the French elections. So we won't see France getting too friendly with Russia anytime soon with Le Pen defeated again. Do you mean "less lose/lose less"? πŸ˜† But you're right, not a win by any means but a ray of hope. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is so typical of humanity that going green seems like a better option when it is part of a war effort. These damn humans! Hypothetical; What are the chances, that if Putin were assassinated, even by his own people, a worse replacement comes in, then blames the west for the assassination and goes to war with NATO using that as the justification to try and get China on side?
  11. MSC

    Political Humor

    Well... it's better than my one math joke. How many meals a day do mathematicians eat? 9. They eat 3Β² meals a day.
  12. I'll breathe a bigger sigh of relief if we escape another Trump or Trumpite term in 2024. Apparently Ron DeSantis is thinking of running against Trump... which tbh also fills me with dread. He's going to run on this massive anti-pc rhetoric and will be basically running as a Trump impersonater. I don't know if it is that off topic though, discussing the history and future around this subject. But then we have discussed this to death. My heads spinning and I'm distracted in RL a lot right now. Daughter is sick and I've not really been sleeping that much. There is another thread that has captured my interest but its kind of quiet on it. Gonna see if I can kick up more discussion there just drafting my first comment in it.
  13. None at all my friend. And they were unfair attacks so I understand. I do realize that Biden can make mistakes and he has made plenty. I suppose I am currently less able to think of any that concern me too much aside from his earlier career. I mean; when he was younger he said a few things that I think we both would agree were racist. He changed with the times I guess but as an auld yin, I imagine he still utters something privately where people are a like "dude, I know you're old, but you can't say shit like that anymore." I suppose something that also makes me feel sorry for him, is that I don't think he really wanted the presidency this time around. I think he only went for it because giving people more choices than Trump or Sanders was more important for the USA than what he wanted. There is Valor in that act. I think it does reveal a quality of character that is ideal for leadership. I wish he had gotten in with more power for his party in the Senate though, I feel like he could have done so much more with more potential to pass legislation and he's not going to get much of a fair shake at it. That said though, hyperpartisanship being what it is, it could be a long time before anybody has a supermajority in the senate again. If it happens anytime soon, it'll probably be due to a despicable gerrymandering pulled by one of the parties. Even though you're Canadian, I still think you do have a right through neighborly interest and concern to comment on the situation here in the US. I'm not a citizen and can only vote in state and municipal elections due to policy in this particular state giving me a vote. Although my daughter is Scottish-American... that's basically Canadian right? πŸ˜† I even have some French ancestry!
  14. Because Asian-American is what gets put into all types of forms. I think it's about trying to find a happy medium between combating racism while keeping secure feelings of cultural pride in one's heritage, as well as safety for medical signposting. That said, you can also be more specific than that Japanese-American, Scottish-American etc. Obviously Scottish is not Asian, but I'm not from the Caucasus either so I can't be Caucasian πŸ˜‚. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like in the very extreme. I'm not white, I'm more of a light rose and peach colour and in the summer I'm light brown. What if I want to be prejudiced against fake tan orange people? Is that okay? Or what if I want to create a new basis for race based on height or areola shape and circumference? What if someone's parents are European but they were born somewhere in Asia? Can they be European-Asian? I suppose we should just be thankful that identity politics isn't as confusing as the above extreme, but it still is pretty confusing. From the perspective of a centrist, it sometimes feels like the left and right political extremes make it feel like there is nothing nice to say anymore. If the rule is if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all, and there is nothing nice to say anymore, that's just a lot of silence. Maybe I should just address everyone and everything by their name or living being? I do like what you said about relationship correctness. I remember watching a Ted talk on something called emotional correctness. It described the idea of being more in line with the feeling of something than the politics of it. For example, in the Abortion debate, both sides could do with better remembering that both views come from a similar sentiment of care toward a living being. Or when disagreeing with one another, not getting angry at being disagreed with or having someone point out a mistake to you and then angrily punishing them on that basis alone. I'm just saying that in general, thats not directed towards anyone here.
  15. True, although I would point out that in this instance, self-serving, could be considered justified here if it enables feelings of restoration and reparation. Seeking justice for one's self or one's community for past wrongs,, is definitely self serving, but not a bad expression of it imo. But you're right, we shouldn't assume what the opinions are either way until these wanker journalists do their damn jobs and get the information that would actually help our discussion, out there.
  16. That dictionary definition was in context but okay. I already apologized in general a few lines ago. But I can be more direct. In regards to the racist accusation, I take it back. I'm sorry. In all honesty after the last time I said that, I regretted it about 20 minutes after I said it because you did actually say that in all you agreed KBJ deserved the job. But at that point it had been up too long so I couldn't edit it away. I didn't actually say simplistic though, I said "not difficult to understand" in response to you insinuating that I was just too stupid to see your point. (In the reverse would you not have reacted similarly?) As for not grasping my points, I still feel like most of it was missed but I'm not overly concerned about that, at least not anymore. I didn't really think it was because you or JC are stupid either, but because I had written a lot and it felt like you were both just skimming it over and reading to respond rather than reading to understand. Especially the holistic review and affirmative action stuff. I said last night, I really am just tired of anger in general and I really don't like falling out with people over arguments like these. We were agreeing to respectfully disagree just a few pages ago, then things escalated and I think we both said things to each other that are beneath us. I regret the things I said to you, sincerely. I was getting frustrated and close to losing my temper at the time. These are the reasons, not excuses. I still feel bad about it and do hope you can forgive me there. I remember when I got my 1year suspension during a mental breakdown and that you had posted kind words to me after the fact. I appreciated those kind words at the time and still do. While I still believe your expectations of Biden are too idealistic, there is nothing wrong with wanting a better world where we genuinely don't have to worry about discrimination anymore and people of all races are confident that a SC nominee is going to do right by them, regardless of who they are. So while I don't agree with you, I do actually wish you were correct. I'm still a bit of an idealist too deep down.
  17. Neither did I. Whether or not Bidens actions we are discussing were disrespectful, is our point of disagreement. But having both of us now done similar searches (My search was their opinions on KBJ specifically, so between us that's two bases covered) I would say that the lack of effort to get or make clearer the opinions of real black people, is disrespectful. Would you agree with that?
  18. Stupidity for some yes. For others, the brutality that came with the propaganda is more of a factor. Fear and ignorance together is a powerful thing. πŸ˜•
  19. Oh so it says 28% of whites does it? Then why does it say non-white American? I'm assuming an honest typo. Correct? It also clearly says the polls sample was was not large enough to break out results for black people. Just a very unspecific "non-white Americans". Essentially it just breaks it down into 2 categories, white Americans and everyone else, completely othered. Let's see how the math works out. - Census.gov So 28% of non white Americans said they only want Biden to consider black women, in keeping with his campaign promise. 61.6% of the country are white. So that's roughly 61 in 100 are white. (Yall don't mind if I round to a whole number? I'd rather not cut anyone in half.) 14.2% of the population are either black or black and mixed with another ethnicity so 14 in 100. If 61 in 100 leaves 39, then we'll say 39 in 100 are non white. 28% of 3C, is 10.92. So theoretically, the 28% of non whites who desired that Biden select only from black woman, could have been a supermajority of black people/mixed race black. Some here may think it safe to assume that most of that 28% is the black community. Without a better round of polling though, I don't like to assume. High probability it is, but not complete certainty for me. What keywords did you use by the way? Not asking to criticise, just trying to figure out what went wrong with my own searches. I've been trying to find this sort of thing online for the past week and have been coming up empty. Thank you for sharing. In conclusion, hopefully there will be a larger sample for the next poll. For now, we are both left to only be able to speculate on the demographic makeup of that 28%. πŸ˜• stalemate for now it seems. Disclaimer: Feel free to correct my math where and if it needs correcting. It's not my aoe. Let's assume you're correct, how do you measure it? As an aside, and in the interest of trying to be more respectful, I apologize for offense caused to everyone in this discussion. Intentional or not. I'd prefer that we all be able cool this discussion down. I've felt myself slipping on my temper and I can tell I'm not the only one either. I suggest we all (myself included) lighten the fuck up, remember we are all just observers to this and unlike the politicians etc that we are discussing; are dedicated to science and the truth. Biden ruffled some people's feathers, sure. Not me, but for those that did feel that way, that sucks and I wish it could have happened differently, but only so that it made less of the people here feel shitty or sore about it. I'm not as emotionally invested in this discussion as you might think, for that to be a possibility. Debating here is less stressful than changing and cleaning up after my daughter has a blow out diaper tbh. I'm also just tired of anger in general.
  20. +1 glad to see your name is ironic! Nope. This is real life. Not fantasy time machine land to an irrelevant and unrelated event. Or your point just isn't a good one. The far more likely possibility. Yes, racism is shouting "unfair and disrespectful" because a black woman got a promotion and beforehand somebody quite accurately said "about time". Why don't you run a poll with black women and ask them what they feel is disrespectful, then post the results here. πŸ€” Did you ask her if she felt she was treated unjustly?
  21. While we are on this subject, isn't a pre-announcement just it's own announcement? When did the work start in the decision to begin searching for a new Supreme Court justice? When he said it would be a black woman, or when Breyer announced he would be retiring? So unlike me you don't need to cite any sources and we all just need to accept your definitions to everything? Okay, your majesty! Tell me what to believe and I'll never open a book again! I promise, and I'll stop trusting my senses too since you now sense and decide for me master. Yes sir boss, whatever you command! All Hail King MigL! 🀴 So In your opinion, they are both a violation of the fair housing act of 1968? Am I allowed to link you to that law? Or am I not allowed to lookup laws as well as words in the dictionary anymore? God forbid I ever cite a source again sire! Excuses are like assholes. Everyone has them. His critics were going to find a problem either way! Fact.
  22. It is pretty impressive and as an achievement it's a big one. The primary Contributing factors I would say, besides the intent and will to do it of course; the one child policy, that was active from 1980 to 2016, forced most families in poverty to have only one child. Usually the norm for those living in poverty, is to have more children than that, due to increased infant and child mortality rates and a desire for an all hands on deck mentality, wherein more children meant more people to go out and make money for the family. Based on the impact of this policy on the poverty rate, the mentality was counter intuitive as for every child born, money has to be stretched further and the child will be incapable of contributing anything to the rest of the family for many years. So financially speaking, each new child requires considerable investment before a return can be had on their contributions, which may not ever fully compensate for the investment, for many decades, if at all. The population growth rate in China has definitely ground down to a very slow crawl. While the death rate has sped up. On the negative side of things, accusations of forced sterilization of Ugyurs and other minorities could be one other contributing factor. So, great achievement, to be respected, but not a justification for human rights violations, media suppression, attacks on free speech etc. I very much doubt a one child policy could ever be enacted here. Especially with 30 states essentially giving the finger to Roe vs Wade. That said, I could be overestimating the contribution by the one child policy. Enclosing the line graphs on the pop growth and death rate below via screenshots. Will edit with source links too. Sources - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN?contextual=default&end=2020&locations=CN&start=2000&view=chart https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?utm_medium=explore&mprop=count&popt=Person&hl=en
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.