The future looks bleak as fukk

[Godzuki]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/opinions/obeidallah-jerry-seinfeld/

(CNN)"What's the deal with political correctness?" That line should be said in the voice and cadence of Jerry Seinfeld.

You see, back in 2014, Seinfeld railed against political correctness when asked why guests on his "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" Web series were mostly white men. He also remarked that the idea pop culture has to "represent the actual pie chart of America" is "PC nonsense." Rather, the focus should be, "Are you making us laugh or not?"
Jerry Seinfeld: Political correctness is bad for comedy

Jerry Seinfeld: Political correctness is bad for comedy 01:38
PLAY VIDEO

Well, Seinfeld is at it again. This time the comedian's focus is political correctness among college students. Seinfeld told ESPN radio recently, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.' " He added that younger people "just want to use these words: 'That's racist;' 'That's sexist;' 'That's prejudice.' They don't know what ... they're talking about."
Dean Obeidallah
Dean Obeidallah

On the one hand, Seinfeld is 100% correct. On the other hand, he is way, way off.

Seinfeld is right that college students can be very PC. I have seen it firsthand when I performed standup comedy or gave lectures on college campuses. College students react to jokes about issues of race, gender, or sexual orientation differently than many people in their 40s, 50s and older. In fact, on several occasions, college students have come up to me after shows to explain that they were "concerned" with one of my jokes. Typically, they had read something into the joke that I had not intended. We would discuss the joke, but they never demanded I stop telling it.

Where Seinfeld and I disagree is that I don't see "political correctness" as being inherently bad -- unless it goes way overboard. To me, "political correctness" is about being respectful to minorities -- be it based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

And where I greatly disagree with Seinfeld is that based on my experiences of performing on college campuses, I believe young adults for the most part really get racism, sexism, and other -- isms.

For example, I have been in shows where comedians told very sexist or homophobic jokes. These same jokes would elicit good laughs in comedy clubs, but were met with numerous objections by college students. The students have every right to voice their views about these jokes.

I think what Seinfeld is missing is the "why" behind the reactions of college students.

READ: Why some comedians don't like college campuses

Chris Rock summed it up well in December when he announced he would no longer play colleges because the students are too PC. Rock said that because of the way kids are raised today, you can't even mention race: "You can't say 'The black kid over there.' No, it's 'The guy with the red shoes.' "

Rock is right that people are raised differently today. Kids nowadays grow up in more multicultural nation than Seinfeld, Rock or I did. I have joked that I grew up in a town where the diversity was limited to two groups: You were either Italian or you were my father. (He was of Arab heritage while my mother is Sicilian.)

When I was a kid, if someone told a joke about other ethnicities or races, we would simply laugh if the joke was funny. No one analyzed it; we never would have thought of doing that. Partly, it's because the butt of the jokes were groups of people we didn't know personally.

Flash forward to today. Even in seventh grade -- as my niece informed me -- students are taught to be sensitive toward other races and cultures. This impacts not only the way they view the world, but also their view of comedy.

So what Seinfeld calls "political correctness" can be better described as a generation gap. Comedy tastes evolve to reflect the cultural norms of the time. It's why comedians from the 1950s like Henny Youngman -- famous for his "Take my wife ... please" joke -- wasn't popular with younger people in the late 1960s. That generation gravitated toward comedians like Richard Pryor and George Carlin who weren't telling jokes about wives, but about things like race and politics.

Every comedian has a choice to perform at colleges. But don't blame college students for wanting comedy that fits their own sensibilities. Why should any audience have to change their comedy tastes to fit a comedian's act?


for as much as i wish to be able to drive flying cars, my crib becoming a beachfront property when the ice caps melt, and having a Jetson's ease of life i am thankful i am not going to have to live in this future of political correctness based on brainwashed mainstream.

i'm pretty sure 'thats gay', 'you're a ***', etc. will be banned in the near future or you get fined for it. ISH hierarchy has already shown they're as brainwashed retard as they come.

there will be a expectation of even race/gender representation across all jobs and companies.

cops will be reduced to crossing guards and ghetto communities will run rampant with drug dealers and gangs.

white people will become black peoples slaves and be happy about it.

the future looks bleak as fukk :biggums:

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Ehh, think of it as a pendulum.

It'll swing back to balance again some time later.

[Akrazotile]

Jerry Seinfeld: Political correctness is bad for comedy 01:38
PLAY VIDEO

Well, Seinfeld is at it again. This time the comedian's focus is political correctness among college students. Seinfeld told ESPN radio recently, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.' " He added that younger people "just want to use these words: 'That's racist;' 'That's sexist;' 'That's prejudice.' They don't know what ... they're talking about."


:


Deucewallace, rmwg, Sarcastic, and a handful of other ISH losers in an absolute nutshell.

[Patrick Chewing]

Ehh, think of it as a pendulum.

It'll swing back to balance again some time later.


I hope you're right.


I miss the days of just saying "That's gay" in public to everything i was displeased with.

[warriorfan]

I hope you're right.


I miss the days of just saying "That's gay" in public to everything i was displeased with.

bring it back

[MavsSuperFan]

:lol ISH is like a junior high locker room

[DeuceWallaces]

Deucewallace, rmwg, Sarcastic, and a handful of other ISH losers in an absolute nutshell.

Yeah, we're the losers; everything's on the up and up for you. :lol

[ThePhantomCreep]

When I think of the word "bleak" genocide, pestilence, famine, and war come to mind. Jerry Seinfeld's hack comedy routine doesn't.

[NumberSix]

Where Seinfeld and I disagree is that I don't see "political correctness" as being inherently bad -- unless it goes way overboard. To me, "political correctness" is about being respectful to minorities -- be it based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
Why minorities? Do majorities not have feelings?


Every comedian has a choice to perform at colleges. But don't blame college students for wanting comedy that fits their own sensibilities. Why should any audience have to change their comedy tastes to fit a comedian's act?
Nobody said they should. Comedians have said they simply won't be performing for these crowds.

[rufuspaul]

What's bleak is knowing there are pathetic wastes of life out there like Godzuki and that they think their vapid opinions carry any weight at all.

[JtotheIzzo]

the game of 'gotcha!' will get boring, people will mellow out.

[oh the horror]

Yes THIS is the reason our future is bleak. Not the actual atrocities out there. No no, this is the reason here.

[ALBballer]

the game of 'gotcha!' will get boring, people will mellow out.

I don't think so especially with the rise of social media and people looking to portray an image on how open and accepting they are.

Also coupled with how sensitive American and Western culture has become I don't see this PC trend changing.

[RedBlackAttack]

I don't think so especially with the rise of social media and people looking to portray an image on how open and accepting they are.

Also coupled with how sensitive American and Western culture has become I don't see this PC trend changing.
The social media thing has really altered the way people consume and -- more importantly -- interact with the news. Oversaturation and fake outrage are a dangerous combination. There was a time not that long ago (two decades) where people would read an article or two in the newspaper, watch something on the nightly news or CNN -- which was still a pretty straight forward news network covering stories that warranted being covered -- and maybe came across something on the Internet worth shaking their head at once in a while... for those that had it. But, most had no vehicle for publicly displaying their displeasure outside of maybe writing a letter to the editor or calling in to a radio/television show... maybe start a blog for those on the absolute cutting edge.

Now, if someone wants to crank up the fake outrage machine and get on their high horse, brand new stories that will allow them to stroke their own egos are a couple mouse clicks away. It doesn't matter how trivial the story is or how few people it impacts (if any)... if it allows people an opportunity to get on their high horse and espouse their greatness and the terribleness of those in the spotlight... it enables otherwise bored and/or miserable people a chance to show everyone a (usually completely inaccurate) picture of how tolerant, moral, virtuous and righteous they are.

Unfortunately, it feels like we're just at the beginning of this trend and it is at the core of what Seinfeld as complaining about. The news is going to supply whatever the public demands. A large portion of consumers want to feel better about themselves and that isn't something new. What is new is that they can look down their nose at someone they don't know based on a two-minute news story or a 500 word article whose explicit intention was to appeal to people's undying self-righteousness... then they can get on their message boards, blogs, comments section, Twitter, FB, etc., and make a public display of their greatness.

We'll have to come a long way in society for people to crave self-awareness over self-righteousness. Right now, we're on the far end of the spectrum and getting worse each day, sadly.

[ALBballer]

The social media thing has really altered the way people consume and -- more importantly -- interact with the news. Oversaturation and fake outrage are a dangerous combination. There was a time not that long ago (two decades) where people would read an article or two in the newspaper, watch something on the nightly news or CNN -- which was still a pretty straight forward news network covering stories that warranted being covered -- and maybe came across something on the Internet worth shaking their head at once in a while... for those that had it. But, most had no vehicle for publicly displaying their displeasure outside of maybe writing a letter to the editor or calling in to a radio/television show... maybe start a blog for those on the absolute cutting edge.

Now, if someone wants to crank up the fake outrage machine and get on their high horse, brand new stories that will allow them to stroke their own egos are a couple mouse clicks away. It doesn't matter how trivial the story is or how few people it impacts (if any)... if it allows people an opportunity to get on their high horse and espouse their greatness and the terribleness of those in the spotlight... it enables otherwise bored and/or miserable people a chance to show everyone a (usually completely inaccurate) picture of how tolerant, moral, virtuous and righteous they are.

Unfortunately, it feels like we're just at the beginning of this trend and it is at the core of what Seinfeld as complaining about. The news is going to supply whatever the public demands. A large portion of consumers want to feel better about themselves and that isn't something new. What is new is that they can look down their nose at someone they don't know based on a two-minute news story or a 500 word article whose explicit intention was to appeal to people's undying self-righteousness... then they can get on their message boards, blogs, comments section, Twitter, FB, etc., and make a public display of their greatness.

We'll have to come a long way in society for people to crave self-awareness over self-righteousness. Right now, we're on the far end of the spectrum and getting worse each day, sadly.

Well said....you said it better than I could have put it.

[DCL]

nobel-prize winning scientist loses everything for making a little comment about boys and girls. PC feminists go completely ape shit over it.

http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-forced-resign-125443022.html

[DCL]

he basically said that girls cause trouble in labs because "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry."

he didn't even make a predictable comment about women belonging in kitchens. he just said they were a distraction and you might fall in love with them.

that tone is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE in the PC feminist world today.

[DeuceWallaces]

he basically said that girls cause trouble in labs because "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry."

he didn't even make a predictable comment about women belonging in kitchens. he just said they were a distraction and you might fall in love with them.

that tone is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE in the PC feminist world today.

You can't say shit like that in an academic department. Incredibly stupid and pretty offensive to spout off on twitter, at a seminar, or maybe even in a lab meeting.

I'm not surprised he was forced out.

[DCL]

You can't say shit like that in an academic department. Incredibly stupid and pretty offensive to spout off on twitter, at a seminar, or maybe even in a lab meeting.

I'm not surprised he was forced out.


i know you can't say that in the academic world. the standards are even stricter in college... kinda like how seinfeld suggested. the environment in college is extremely PC. but it's spilling over to not just academics now.

[niko]

my favorite part is taht as early as seventh grade people are taught to be sensitive. SEVENTH GRADE? Kids are teens...

[niko]

he basically said that girls cause trouble in labs because "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry."

he didn't even make a predictable comment about women belonging in kitchens. he just said they were a distraction and you might fall in love with them.

that tone is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE in the PC feminist world today.
it's highly offensive anywhere. What job can you suggest that 50% of the people doing it are not qualified because of their gender? And if you work for the university in a position like that, you represent the university, so it's even worse.

This is normal. If he made a joke about women unrelated to this it's different. He wasn't making a joke here.

[DeuceWallaces]

i know you can't say that in the academic world. the standards are even stricter in college... kinda like how seinfeld suggested. the environment in college is extremely PC. but it's spilling over to not just academics now.

It's nothing like Seinfeld. He's talking about idiot pc kids at a comedy show. This is a tenure professor spouting off ridiculous academic gender critiques in a public forum with no intention of comedy.

[Jailblazers7]

Of course a university is more sensitive to political correctness. It's where the term first became important and used as a "movement." There are issues where schools are becoming too sensitive but that professor getting himself in trouble is not part of that problem.

[niko]

Basically if you have a job were you are representing your company in a real way sometimes (businesses think of you as the contact, you're the one selling to them, etc.) then you can't just spout nonsense without consequence. It's just how it is. Some of you seem to think that's not the case whcih is fine theoretically but in practice something you might want to learn and accept.

[Akrazotile]

It's nothing like Seinfeld. He's talking about idiot pc kids at a comedy show. This is a tenure professor spouting off ridiculous academic gender critiques in a public forum with no intention of comedy.


So he shouod be censured from having opinions on social subjects if they dont agree with yours?

What if hed said "Everyone is 100% equal and it's an absolute round-the-clock pleasure to work with every person in every environmen."

Would you criticize him for "spouting off" and having no business to give opinions? No. Youre only upset bc he publicly gave an opinion DIFFERENT FROM YOUR PATHETIC LOSER BETA MALE ONE.

Thats why youre upset. You want to bring confident, old school men down via public witch hunts, bc thats your ugly boring beta male way of moving up the social heirarchy. You cant be a funny, confident, articulate, aggressive male so you want to smear anyone found "guilty" of being one as a means of looking like you matter. Youre at the bottom of the masculinity food chain so you ally yourselves with minority agendas to bring down traditional establishment. And you tell yourself its bc youre so ethical and righeous. But youre acually just a passive aggressive loser.

[Akrazotile]

Basically if you have a job were you are representing your company in a real way sometimes (businesses think of you as the contact, you're the one selling to them, etc.) then you can't just spout nonsense without consequence. It's just how it is. Some of you seem to think that's not the case whcih is fine theoretically but in practice something you might want to learn and accept.


Why is it nonsense? Its his opinion as a noble prize winning professor in his field based on his experiences.

It refers to reality rather than perfect ideology so we have to dismiss it and blast his character and end his livelyhood over it?

[DeuceWallaces]

So he shouod be censured from having opinions on social subjects if they dont agree with yours?

What if hed said "Everyone is 100% equal and it's an absolute round-the-clock pleasure to work with every person in every environmen."

Would you criticize him for "spouting off" and having no business to give opinions? No. Youre only upset bc he publicly gave an opinion DIFFERENT FROM YOUR PATHETIC LOSER BETA MALE ONE.

Thats why youre upset. You want to bring confident, old school men down via public witch hunts, bc thats your ugly boring beta male way of moving up the social heirarchy. You cant be a funny, confident, articulate, aggressive male so you want to smear anyone found "guilty" of being one as a means of looking like you matter. Youre at the bottom of the masculinity food chain so you ally yourselves with minority agendas to bring down traditional establishment. And you tell yourself its bc youre so ethical and righeous. But youre acually just a passive aggressive loser.

Over the years I've just grown to feel sorry for you. I mean, what the fvck are you even talking about? One day you'll grow up.

You don't know the least bit about the world he works in. My opinion on his position or my personal take is neither here nor there. He represents the university and his department, which is probably about 40% female at the professorship rank, and a tenured professor walking around the department like it's the 60's will be a massive disruption; he's got to go.

[Akrazotile]

Over the years I've just grown to feel sorry for you. I mean, what the fvck are you even talking about? One day you'll grow up.

You don't know the least bit about the world he works in. My opinion on his position or my personal take is neither here nor there. He represents the university and his department, which is probably about 40% female at the professorship rank, and a tenured professor walking around the department like it's the 60's will be a massive disruption; he's got to go.


He didn't get fired because the people whose hands held his fate disagreed with him. Many of them probably feel the same way. He got fired because of their fear of the reaction of women, and "men" like you leading ultimately to a loss of revenue.

If a woman had made comments converse to this one but of the same very small degree of offense, no peep would ever have been made, because people like YOU wouldn't cry out about it.

Now why do "men" like you react so sensitively to even the most minor, insignificant trangsgressions of the PC paradigm when it involves a traditional majority vs a minority demographic? Because you are not confident in your own ability to make jokes nor honest evaluations of the social condition. You are the QUINTESSENTIAL background beta male. Not charming, smart, or funny, not athletic, not confident, not anything. So when you get your opportunity to lend your pathetic, cracking voice to phony outrage about even miniscule offenses created by men more dominant than you, you seize that opportunity to shout out and be seen doing something of assertion. But it's because you CANT do anything MEANINGFUL of assertion, so you take up political correctness as your big conviction. Basically witch hunting confident, outspoken men and neutering them until they're on an even playing field with you - a man who sadly is naturally neutered.


REAL TALK

[dude77]

that professor getting fired over that is ****in' ridiculous .. men have been neutered, simply put .. and some are perfectly ok with it as seen by some responses on here .. meanwhile you have that cnt in boston university or wtf she works saying 'all white males are the problem' and she keeps her job .. not a peep from the beta pssies over that .. where's the outrage from you fggts over that one ? .. when will this retarded pc nonsense end ? .. men stand up for yourselves and stop being neutered pssies .. if I had any say, I would've told anyone calling for his firing to go fk themselves

[DeuceWallaces]

He didn't get fired because the people whose hands held his fate disagreed with him. Many of them probably feel the same way. He got fired because of their fear of the reaction of women, and "men" like you leading ultimately to a loss of revenue.

If a woman had made comments converse to this one but of the same very small degree of offense, no peep would ever have been made, because people like YOU wouldn't cry out about it.

Now why do "men" like you react so sensitively to even the most minor, insignificant trangsgressions of the PC paradigm when it involves a traditional majority vs a minority demographic? Because you are not confident in your own ability to make jokes nor honest evaluations of the social condition. You are the QUINTESSENTIAL background beta male. Not charming, smart, or funny, not athletic, not confident, not anything. So when you get your opportunity to lend your pathetic, cracking voice to phony outrage about even miniscule offenses created by men more dominant than you, you seize that opportunity to shout out and be seen doing something of assertion. But it's because you CANT do anything MEANINGFUL of assertion, so you take up political correctness as your big conviction. Basically witch hunting confident, outspoken men and neutering them until they're on an even playing field with you - a man who sadly is naturally neutered.


REAL TALK

He got fired because his female colleagues in the department were likely pissed, the department head can't have a contentious atmosphere permeating meetings, seminars, and other events, and this would all have a terrible impact on their ability to recruit quality female candidates for graduate and faculty positions.

It's a pretty simple equation.

[L.Kizzle]

People with the least shit get to say the most shit.
People with the most shit get to say the least shit.

[NumberSix]

Over the years I've just grown to feel sorry for you. I mean, what the fvck are you even talking about? One day you'll grow up.

You don't know the least bit about the world he works in. My opinion on his position or my personal take is neither here nor there. He represents the university and his department, which is probably about 40% female at the professorship rank, and a tenured professor walking around the department like it's the 60's will be a massive disruption; he's got to go.
What if a Muslim professor said something about how he thinks it would be preferable for men and women to be segregated? Not actually acting on it, but just in passing expressing that view? Should he be fired? I don't think so. Do you?

[DeuceWallaces]

What if a Muslim professor said something about how he thinks it would be preferable for men and women to be segregated? Not actually acting on it, but just in passing expressing that view? Should he be fired? I don't think so. Do you?

Of course he would be fired.

[NumberSix]

Of course he would be fired.
I didn't ask you that. I asked if YOU think he SHOULD be fired.

[DeuceWallaces]

If I was department head I'd let him go.

[NumberSix]

If I was department head I'd let him go.
What happens when he sues claiming that he got fired for simply expressing a religious view?

[DeuceWallaces]

What happens when he sues claiming that he got fired for simply expressing a religious view?

I would let university lawyers handle it. His religious views should not supersede gender equality or the views of the department.

[Akrazotile]

I would let university lawyers handle it. His religious views should not supersede gender equality or the views of the department.


In what way would he be infringing on gender equality?

Having an opinion infringes on gender equality?


You notice how most GUYS on here are like "Man, this stuff is just gettin outta control, smh" and you and rmwg and droid are like the only fakkits who are like "yeah, so offensive, omg, have to make sure everything is equal, making jokes is unfair, white men shouldnt have opinions, blah blah blah"

You notice how its the biggest dorks with the least personality on here that always have these opinions. Maybe just maybe theres something to that.

Considering youre 38 and still a "college campus marxist" as well, its pretty obvious youve got severe identity crisis issues and are desperate to try and fit in somewhere instead of thinking and acting on your own like a man. ****in pathetic.

[DeuceWallaces]

Yeah, your alpha as fvck mentality, whatever that means, is really getting you places.

Keep it up.

[NumberSix]

I would let university lawyers handle it. His religious views should not supersede gender equality or the views of the department.
Well, that's like, your opinion man.

The funny thing is, I'm actually the guy who thinks you should be able to fire people for whatever the hell reason you want, assuming of course it's a private institution and not a public one.

Now, let's turn it around. Say somebody simply says out loud that Muslim professors could present issues for women because his religious views could be detrimental to gender equality. Should they be fired for religious intolerance or is it a legitimate point to raise?

[DeuceWallaces]

I'm in the middle of my work day, so pardon me if I ignore the remainder of your hypothetical scenario and discussions. Must be your day off.

[NumberSix]

I'm in the middle of my work day, so pardon me if I ignore the remainder of your hypothetical scenario and discussions. Must be your day off.
In the time it took you to write that, you could have simply just answered.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah, your alpha as fvck mentality, whatever that means, is really getting you places.

Keep it up.


Whether I make one nickel or a billion dollars for the rest of my life, at least I have the pride of thinking and acting and speaking on my own volition rather than being a sniveling coward boxed into a tedious and pathetic corner of political correctness bc Im scared and unable to establish my identity as an individual man in a world of other men. You repeat the safe, accepted party line in EVERY SINGLE discussion. That makes you pathetic and weak no matter what job you have, who you know, whose dick youre suckin on. And you are the most cowardly and pathetic excuse for a man on this entire board and probably in most places newr and far.

[NumberSix]

Whether I make one nickel or a billion dollars for the rest of my life, at least I have the pride of thinking and acting and speaking on my own volition rather than being a sniveling coward boxed into a tedious and pathetic corner of political correctness bc Im scared and unable to establish my identity as an individual man in a world of other men. You repeat the safe, accepted party line in EVERY SINGLE discussion. That makes you pathetic and weak no matter what job you have, who you know, whose dick youre suckin on. And you are the most cowardly and pathetic excuse for a man on this entire board and probably in most places newr and far.
To be fair, those very well might be his own opinions. Just because you don't like his opinions doesn't mean he's just blinding parroting what he's told to think (which he actually frequently accuses people of doing himself).

[Akrazotile]

To be fair, those very well might be his own opinions. Just because you don't like his opinions doesn't mean he's just blinding parroting what he's told to think (which he actually frequently accuses people of doing himself).


Not this guy, no. He always spews the left-wing PC rhetoric of outrage no matter how comically over-sensationalized the story is. And he always follows the liberal flow chart. What someone's demographic status is determines how offended he is by their words or actions.

There's a lot of peeps on this site who do that too much, and then there's a small handful of dudes that are just ABSURDLY RIDICULOUSLY overboard with their clinging to the PC witch hunt manual. DeucePhalluses, RMWG, Droid. These are the pansiest of the pansies. They are on the extreme end of the bitchmade spectrum. And it's obvious they cry about this stuff because it's literally their hobby, their community. All of the weaklings and nobodys trying to scorn men who make the mistake of giving opinions that don't conform to what women and minorities want to hear 100% of the time. They do it because they're on the bottom rung of being included, acknowledged, respected in the traditional male-centric world. Crying about that world and trying to obliterate it is their only way to achieve a sense of importance or belonging.

I've read too many of DW's posts not to know what his angle is. Trust me.

[RidonKs]

title is right but not for any of the reasons mentioned by the op. doomsayers in this thread have nothing but pleasant regard for the real threats facing the world. though the truth is they're probably more driven to their conclusions by personality than by ideology, which is only counted on for support when all else fails.

[Akrazotile]

title is right but not for any of the reasons mentioned by the op. doomsayers in this thread have nothing but pleasant regard for the real threats facing the world. though the truth is they're probably more driven to their conclusions by personality than by ideology, which is only counted on for support when all else fails.


Oh? Do tell.

[RidonKs]

nuclear war
environmental catastrophe
class warfare
militant radicalization

to name a few

[Akrazotile]

nuclear war
environmental catastrophe
class warfare
militant radicalization

to name a few



Few people care about these things regardless of their opinion on the modern witch hunts of the non PC.

[RidonKs]

Few people care about these things regardless of their opinion on the modern witch hunts of the non PC.
that isn't the least bit true. hundreds of thousands of people traveled to new york city to protest climate change just last year. environmental concern is far and away most pressing among the general population but there are a lot of people in the civil sector working on these issues. not joyriding or pretending, but actually making a living and contributing to solutions vastly more than you ever have. of course they're wildly underfunded compared to the folks making disney commercials. but that's your glory.

the point is that this work is happening all around you. and in the past 25 years specifically, its been growing. it's your choice not to acknowledge it. or perhaps its your preference to sit in the nosebleed section and heckle. certainly that's a comparable contribution, no? though it's no coincidence that activism on these issues lags in the united states compared to elsewhere. that's the power center of the world for the last 75 years.

but your response goes right to my point. i presume you agree that these four categories of conflict are at the top of the threat list to mankind. take class warfare. the grounds for fearing class warfare are perfectly consistent with your entire ideological outlook. people are naturally acquisitive. when we cannot understand why others have so much and we have so little, we will resort to force. fk property rights, we are the many, you are the few.

we agree that's substantially the mindset. so will the poor try to rob the rich again? probably. what will be the consequences if it does? well this isn't the only factor but it is significant. there are currently hundreds of thousands of people in the us employed as private mercenaries by corporate boards guided by a concentrated class of individual and institutional investors. each individual fights for their paycheck. that's about 25% of the american fighting force. expect that number to rise in the next 10 years closer to 50%. by the way, speaking of efficiency, the privatized military sector costs almost twice as much per unit as the nationalized military sector. oh well.

the question will hinge, as per usual, on how the united states government responds. if reform fails in the united states and the oligarchs consolidate their power in the two main parties, shit will hit the fan. it will be a war of fairness against property and neither side will be able to reconcile with the other. the government will be in a conflict of interest; protect the "public interest" (no violence) or protect the "national interest" (no stealing). the way things are going, there is a good chance government leaves protection of property to the militias. which will result in violence. which will result in vengeance. which will spiral into generational chaos. in that case and it is important to remember that in the context we are speaking, the only determinant of future stability will be the level of economic and political satisfaction held by the majority.

i don't give two shits about the pc parade. it's a sideshow. there are casualties on both sides. it's fueled by the media. celebrities bathing in the limelight giving their 'take'. lots of group think going on. oversimplification and namecalling and demonization of both sides. it's awful. but its a sideshow occurring as a ramification of far more intransigent attitudes on issues at the core of people's lives. being black or gay or handicapped or trans whatever the fk are also sideshows in a sense. i am not particularly interested in those battles, because as i see it, they have already been won. we are just watching the synthesis. the same can be said for islam to some extent.





starface: give me three paragraphs on your feelings towards the famous margaret mead quote; "there is no doubt that a few hardworking people can change the world; in fact it's the only thing that ever has". interpret that worldly change however you want, without narrowing your focus to progressive activism.

[Akrazotile]

that isn't the least bit true. hundreds of thousands of people traveled to new york city to protest climate change just last year. environmental concern is far and away most pressing among the general population but there are a lot of people in the civil sector working on these issues. not joyriding or pretending, but actually making a living and contributing to solutions vastly more than you ever have. of course they're wildly underfunded compared to the folks making disney commercials. but that's your glory.

the point is that this work is happening all around you. and in the past 25 years specifically, its been growing. it's your choice not to acknowledge it. or perhaps its your preference to sit in the nosebleed section and heckle. certainly that's a comparable contribution, no? though it's no coincidence that activism on these issues lags in the united states compared to elsewhere. that's the power center of the world for the last 75 years.

but your response goes right to my point. i presume you agree that these four categories of conflict are at the top of the threat list to mankind. take class warfare. the grounds for fearing class warfare are perfectly consistent with your entire ideological outlook. people are naturally acquisitive. when we cannot understand why others have so much and we have so little, we will resort to force. fk property rights, we are the many, you are the few.

we agree that's substantially the mindset. so will the poor try to rob the rich again? probably. what will be the consequences if it does? well this isn't the only factor but it is significant. there are currently hundreds of thousands of people in the us employed as private mercenaries by corporate boards guided by a concentrated class of individual and institutional investors. each individual fights for their paycheck. that's about 25% of the american fighting force. expect that number to rise in the next 10 years closer to 50%. by the way, speaking of efficiency, the privatized military sector costs almost twice as much per unit as the nationalized military sector. oh well.

the question will hinge, as per usual, on how the united states government responds. if reform fails in the united states and the oligarchs consolidate their power in the two main parties, shit will hit the fan. it will be a war of fairness against property and neither side will be able to reconcile with the other. the government will be in a conflict of interest; protect the "public interest" (no violence) or protect the "national interest" (no stealing). the way things are going, there is a good chance government leaves protection of property to the militias. which will result in violence. which will result in vengeance. which will spiral into generational chaos. in that case and it is important to remember that in the context we are speaking, the only determinant of future stability will be the level of economic and political satisfaction held by the majority.

i don't give two shits about the pc parade. it's a sideshow. there are casualties on both sides. it's fueled by the media. celebrities bathing in the limelight giving their 'take'. lots of group think going on. oversimplification and namecalling and demonization of both sides. it's awful. but its a sideshow occurring as a ramification of far more intransigent attitudes on issues at the core of people's lives. being black or gay or handicapped or trans whatever the fk are also sideshows in a sense. i am not particularly interested in those battles, because as i see it, they have already been won. we are just watching the synthesis. the same can be said for islam to some extent.





starface: give me three paragraphs on your feelings towards the famous margaret mead quote; "there is no doubt that a few hardworking people can change the world; in fact it's the only thing that ever has". interpret that worldly change however you want, without narrowing your focus to progressive activism.


Stopped reading + LOL'd at "people protested climate change."

Wtf??? I don't think the climate was listening bro.

But that reminds me, I'm late for a rally against the Moon's cycles. Will try and get to the rest of your post later.

[RidonKs]

Stopped reading + LOL'd at "people protested climate change."

Wtf??? I don't think the climate was listening bro.

But that reminds me, I'm late for a rally against the Moon's cycles. Will try and get to the rest of your post later.
umm, the protest was in support of an appropriate response to climate change. its aim was not to change the heavens. but thanks for your careful consideration. god you're a knucklehead. always whining about how nobody stands up for anything and everybody's a lazy couch potato but as soon as hundreds of thousands from all over the world march through the biggest city in the world in an effort to compel leaders to use their fking heads and deal with this shit? dismissed who cares idiots suckers lol

jeebus


wait a minute was that just trolling? see my troll sensor is deranged because i never know how sincere an idiot might be. oh well.

[DCL]

it's highly offensive anywhere. What job can you suggest that 50% of the people doing it are not qualified because of their gender? And if you work for the university in a position like that, you represent the university, so it's even worse.

This is normal. If he made a joke about women unrelated to this it's different. He wasn't making a joke here.

well, i am acknowleding it was a sexist statement. not denying that, but on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being whatevers and 10 being ultra-offensive, where did that statement rank?

the comment was "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry."

the first part about falling in love with each other, i don't find that offensive. call me a neanderthal caveman or whatever, it's okay, but i just don't find that first part to be offensive in any way. the second part though about them crying, okay, that part is evidently sexist, but was that really at a 10 on the sexist remark scale? because the reaction and punishment was at or near a 10.

it's like getting the career death penalty for stealing a candy bar. i get that universities have way tighter boundaries and stricter codes in what one can express and no establishment wants to be guilty by association, but still, could that statement had been forgiven? could he had defended himself at least by apologizing? can a person who devoted his entire life to a certain field which he received the nobel prize for at least get a mulligan? was that remark really at a full 10 on the offensive scale so the consequence had to be career death penalty??

that's pretty harsh, imo.

[Akrazotile]

umm, the protest was in support of an appropriate response to climate change. its aim was not to change the heavens. but thanks for your careful consideration. god you're a knucklehead. always whining about how nobody stands up for anything and everybody's a lazy couch potato but as soon as hundreds of thousands from all over the world march through the biggest city in the world in an effort to compel leaders to use their fking heads and deal with this shit? dismissed who cares idiots suckers lol

jeebus


wait a minute was that just trolling? see my troll sensor is deranged because i never know how sincere an idiot might be. oh well.


Appropriate responses to any human-rooted factors contributing to climate change would include reducing global population and the industrialization of third world countries.

That is the most direct, effective way to respond to climate change.

But something tells me, that wasn't on the agenda of protesters. It was probably the misguided scapegoat of redneck republicans driving SUV's grrr!!! :rant :rant

American SUV's are a tiny little droplet in the bucket of global carbon emissions. There's too many people. It might be ****ing up the climate, and it's DEFINITELY ****ing up the ecosystems. I am tremendously disheartened by the rapid endangerment of species all over the planet. But clearly we're not going to go and completely undo highly developed societies in America and Europe. For one, they're clearly the most able to understand and address the issues, and moreover we actually live there. We have to address rampant population growth in the middle east and africa. Thats the REAL SOLUTION.

But that's not one you're prepared to confront becuase it's way too socially/politically tenuous and left wing PC cowards and doormat bitches will be afraid of getting labeled, wahhhh :cry: :cry: :cry: Most little bitches aren't built to take the slings and arrows of real leadership. So that's why we get nothing but posturing, posing, fake outrage, phony indignity, and hollow rhetoric from the left. Because they're not built for action.

And that's why I don't take a bunch of crybaby hippie loons rallying around in circles with signs about shutting down a coal plant in West Virginia seriously. Because that's not the solution that matters. They won't deal with the solutions that matter.

[Akrazotile]

And if you're going to PM me, at least clear out your inbox so I can respond. Here you go:


without giving much of a shit whether you take them up or not. i think they would be enlightening but of course that's to the tune of everything i believe. what i will say, as i've said in the past, is that i enjoy sparring with you on these issues. that's because you (among others) are my best course to understand where you're coming from. it's plain that you share a similar curiosity for 'the other side', as if we were on either end of good vs evil.

what you have discovered is that you won't get to the root of it by arguing with regular joe shmoe, who hasn't given any of it the least bit thought, anonymously over the internet. entertaining, funny, stimulating at times. but nevertheless futile.

crystallize my understanding of 'these matters' starface. but don't use your own words. i have read your words. i know every argument you like to trot out. but i also know you are smarter than the words you use, just like everybody else is. so use somebody else's. i know that goes against your hyper independent disposition which suggests that relying on another's vision is akin to plaigerism and prompts group think. that's a view i share, but one i qualify by acknowledging that throughout history, there have been far more eloquent spokespeople than i on 'these matters', and using their words to better articulate my feelings.

here's one to start;

robert heilbroner is an economic theorist who wrote a famous book called "the wealthy philosophers". it's just an overview of major economic thinkers that happens to be well framed and written. his massey lectures in the 90s are about 4 hours long, called 21st century capitalism. its easy to find online. its the 5th part of the series i would suggest you pay serious attention to. this is a man who believes capitalism isn't going anywhere any time remotely soon. he makes a very compelling case. but he is also acutely aware of the drawbacks, which have been nagging you on this board to your bitter resentment for going on ten years.

all the best you ****ing headcase


We arne't on opposite ends of good and evil. We are on opposite ends of reality and ideology.

I want to deal with reality, harnessing the good and accepting the imperfections. You want to spend all our social energies chasing impossible ideologies of grandeur, and neglect or even avoid the simple but unsexy principles that will result in slow improvements over time.

I don't know what to tell you. There seems to be a lot of things about life and society you will not accept, despite their immutable truth. I don't look at things through the same lens as you, so I'm probably never going to tell you what you want to hear.

[DonD13]

my future bright :pimp:

[sundizz]

The social media thing has really altered the way people consume and -- more importantly -- interact with the news. Oversaturation and fake outrage are a dangerous combination. There was a time not that long ago (two decades) where people would read an article or two in the newspaper, watch something on the nightly news or CNN -- which was still a pretty straight forward news network covering stories that warranted being covered -- and maybe came across something on the Internet worth shaking their head at once in a while... for those that had it. But, most had no vehicle for publicly displaying their displeasure outside of maybe writing a letter to the editor or calling in to a radio/television show... maybe start a blog for those on the absolute cutting edge.

Now, if someone wants to crank up the fake outrage machine and get on their high horse, brand new stories that will allow them to stroke their own egos are a couple mouse clicks away. It doesn't matter how trivial the story is or how few people it impacts (if any)... if it allows people an opportunity to get on their high horse and espouse their greatness and the terribleness of those in the spotlight... it enables otherwise bored and/or miserable people a chance to show everyone a (usually completely inaccurate) picture of how tolerant, moral, virtuous and righteous they are.

Unfortunately, it feels like we're just at the beginning of this trend and it is at the core of what Seinfeld as complaining about. The news is going to supply whatever the public demands. A large portion of consumers want to feel better about themselves and that isn't something new. What is new is that they can look down their nose at someone they don't know based on a two-minute news story or a 500 word article whose explicit intention was to appeal to people's undying self-righteousness... then they can get on their message boards, blogs, comments section, Twitter, FB, etc., and make a public display of their greatness.

We'll have to come a long way in society for people to crave self-awareness over self-righteousness. Right now, we're on the far end of the spectrum and getting worse each day, sadly.

One of the best said posts on ISH ever.

[Akrazotile]

One of the best said posts on ISH ever.


Man I been sayin that exact shit for five years. Only now r other people catchin up with me.

Just like I told people 5 years ago that Melo and Amare were ROLE PLAYERS and everyone was like nah uhhh!!!! supurstarss!!!!! 25 ppg each!) Knicks r gunna be so good, melo n amarey!!!!!


Settin the curve up in here, PER USUAL.