The video pretty drastically oversold the benefits of Political Correctness, in my opinion. I do, however, completely agree that generic "politeness" is a far superior standard to hold yourself to or goal to aspire to.

PC vs politeness seems very highly analogous to perceiving things as either intrinsically "offensive" or being personally "offended". Humor is frequently a fantastic way of exploring those kinds differences, and SMBC comics did an excellent strip on offensive vs offended:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-23

The conclusion there is that "I'm offended" starts arguments (ie., it can create rational and beneficial dialog) while "offensive" ends them (ie., it stifles progress). I feel that it is equally accurate to say that politeness can help resolve problems while PCness really doesn't; it is possible to politely disagree, but in the realm of PC disagreement in and of itself is often deemed offensive and seen as something to be discouraged.

I think part of being an adult is learning that people will often disagree, and that is actually a good thing.

Oh, that explains a lot. The closer you get to downtown and to UT, the rent/sale value rises exponentially on houses I wouldn't let my pets live in. I've seen crappy 1940's houses that are falling apart listed for 400k and up that close to UT.

Yeah, Austin is pretty tame. I live in one of the sort of 'bad' areas and we never have had any issues. The closest I've ever come to real trouble is when I walking away from a music venue in south-east Austin a few years back. Three guys asked if I wanted to buy a knife and I, like a total idiot, was like "Sorry, I might have but I spent all my cash inside the club."

It was only after finished walking to my car and left that I realized they were kind of attempting to mug me.

Edit: On the flip side though, unless you live in a district the city keeps the taxes artificially low in (IE, east Austin), you get reamed. Our house is from the late 50's and is valued at 215k, but our yearly property/school taxes run over 4k. Since they just took out another huge bond, I expect next years will be closer to 5.

45 votes and counting...

The problem you have is that you cannot look any further than the last post you disagreed with. There are dozens of videos showing good police officers doing their job, ie. helping the community. Negative commentary goes hand in hand with cops abusing their power or breaking the rules because they think they are above the law.

If you believe cops can do no wrong, you're as fucking moronic as a person who believes cops can do no right. Fortunately, both groups are an absolute minority around here.

Watch further, particularly his videos on authoritarian regimes. His issue is that controlling language with force is a hallmark of classic far left regimes (ie. Lenin/Stalin's Russia, Mao's China etc), so his beef is not only with the uni, it's with the government and the deluded (or worse, calculated) morons who think that state sanctioned and enforced speech is a "good thing".

He has spent decades studying authoritarianism and makes compelling arguments as to why the current "SJWs" are almost identical to the precursors of other authoritarian regimes.

I don't ask anyone to take anything said at face value, but Peterson does the due diligence for his arguments, and will often defer answering a question if he doesn't think he can offer a well reasoned response. I've yet to see a single video where he has said anything negative about trans people (as opposed to saying negative things about a government law to force language), yet he is described as a homophobe because it's far easier to label him to discredit him than to actually listen to what he is saying.

Ok, these are cool and all, but any legit Trekker/ie (BOTH terms have been used by varied alumni cast members and fans to mean whatever they want it to mean) knows these things. Anyone who has watched every episode is like "Are these not obvious facts?"

Spock's emotions were even referenced in the JJ reboot. The beam me up thing is already memed. And ST:TNG practically showcases the burreaceacy of Starfleet as something Picard can elloquently rebutt.

But cool video, this is favorited so i can just send it to people who aren't ultra nerds. (My wife is actually the legit Trekker in the family tho -- i set her ringtone to "It's been a long time" because she hates that folky intro song and i know it annoys her that it's Star Trek music hahahahaaaaa...

/giggle

To add some extra context, the 1 in 20 reply was after an Australian minister in the current government said we were wrong to support Lebanese immigration back in the 70's because of 27 some odds 'accused of terrorist support' types in modern Australia. Someone fired back the 1 in 20 statistic to poke holes in what has been a generally good thing for Australia, ie. integration of other cultures.

The rhetoric from the minister dried up pretty fast, because the figures were so awfully unbalanced that no sane person could try to continue to make the point without making a complete fool of themselves. Trump obviously doesn't have that problem (well, doesn't seem to care if he does make a bigger horses ass of himself).

well, dems keep winning more votes but losing elections. mainly cause republicans re-draw the districts when they get in office ie: gerrymandering.

I'm reading the Bernie Sanders book which provides a good roadmap for building a progressive movement similar to his own. I don't think I could handle reading an entire book on trump.
To clarify one of your other points are you saying you think that trump is putins puppet regardless if there is evidence (ie he admires putin to the point of chumming up with him and ignoring our NATO allies)? It has to be impeachment if the bipartisan investigation finds direct links, I would think and that means pence becomes president right? Also, what do you think about Obama having the opportunity to appoint a special investigator, but passing on it?

Is there a signed treaty? No. But the US SoS (James A. Baker III) and the German Foreign Minister (Hans-Dietrich Genscher) are on the record in 1990

Genscher is on video tape stating very clearly: "Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht das NATO-Verteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur im Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverlaiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell."

In English: we are in agreement that there is no intention of expanding the NATO security zone eastwards. This applies not only to the GDR, which we do not intend to incorporate, but in general."

Or how about Baker's words, Feb. 9, 1990, St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the East."

And the minutes show Gorbachev as having said:
"Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

To which Baker replied:
"I agree."

Again, no treaties, nothing. But some people, myself included, make the argument that unequivocal statements of a nation's highest-ranking diplomat are to be taken seriously, unless overruled by explicit, written agreements.

And from what we've heard from Gorbachev over the years, he took them for their words.

Admittedly, having been replaced by Yelzin who received massive "help" from the US might have made Gorbachev a little grumpy.

What remains at the end is this: NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviets and wasn't dissolved when the Soviet Union collapsed. The highest-ranking diplomats of the primary players at that time (US, FRG) are on the record with promises that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards after the German reunification. Now NATO is closer to Russia's border than ever and the Ukraine had a democratically elected government (they were thugs, but elected) overthrown by forces that had massive support from the US. As a result, fascist militias wearing SS insignia are roaming free in Novorossiya, with government support.

If I were Russia, I'd be pissed.

But I'm in Germany, so now I have a strongman in charge of Russia, a thug who has journalists and opposition in general killed, on the one side, and the Americans who installed a Nazi-sympathising regime in Ukraine on the other.

What's not to like about it.

So when the US establishment then goes on a full-blown bender to position Russia as a scapegoat for now having to live with President Trump, they are playing with fire just to distract from their fucked-up domestic policies.

And we're not even touching on the hypocrisy of the US being outraged when some foreign nation meddles in their internal affairs. Of course Russia tries to influence US politics in their favor. Guess what, so does the UK, France, Germany, NZ, China, Japan, even bloody Luxembourg for all I know. Just like the US exerts influence on German politics (ie German Marshall Fund, Atlantikbrücke, etc), and on politics of every other nation of significance.

First of all passing law to allow pedophiles and perverts in opposite sex bathrooms is wrong.
I'm not rooting for a team. Democrats are just worst. buy an ultra small margin.. They approve low moral standards.

Both are woefully disgusting and hence the ultra low approval ratings and Trump getting in.

I would much rather see more States stand up for States rights and actually limit the FEDs power to 1/2 or more of its current size.

Even better is for News to actually report truth and for the people to stop watching stupid mindless shows ( ie 99% of them) and tune to to what the heck is going on and VOTE. The people represent the "4th" branch of government in a sense. We need to kick out the Harry Reid's and john McCain's of government. They are the truly rich 1% and they did not build shit, they just bought and sold favors at the peoples expense.

With respect to chaos does nto matter where he lives on tihs issue. He was given a video of what is going on and still stood on the side of perverts.


With respect to Trump. Who knows what will unfold. But I do see a bright man who built an empire. That takes skill and ability. Hopefully he will use it to the betterment of the world.

Clinton is and utter disaster of a pick. Corrupt to the core.

The POTUS selection was a no brainier.

Bernie and my pick Cruz would have been an choice. True opposites. One one cheated and one was bullied.


No I am not a republican.. The Bushes were the final straw.

Sadly are only 2 teams and we must pick... Jill Stine No

Because the anchor is at the rear of the vehicle, it would normalise any such manouver, ie. a sudden turn that would typically result in a roll over (assume back left wheel is trapped and the suspect turns hard left or right) would be arrested by the trap if they turned left, as the left wheel would want to rise to flip the car, and might actually be exacerbated if they turn right, where the tether would go under the car and anchor the wheel, increasing the momentum of the body of the car over that pivot point.

However, much like the example of weight in the rear of a trailer reducing the chance of loss of control, any turn would be damped by the addition of an entire car attached to the back of the vehicle, such that I think any turning manouver would likely be dulled substantially.

Additionally, as soon as the thing is deployed, the car is going to decelerate rapidly as it's essentially anchored.

On the surface, if you can control the deployment, looks like it would be a winner.

Mark Twain was clean? Seriously?

Free people can tell more good jokes than people enslaved (limited) by ideology.

What is a "better" joke or a "better" comedian anyway?

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

I am not questioning your credentials, your intent or anything like that.

And I understand that what you are saying is logically the best course of action for any individual, that being the one that doesn't result in the person being in a body bag.

But unfortunately things tend to not change unless blood is spilled and lives are lost. It's moments like these that shock people out of their complacency. I don't need to tell you this of course, you understand it explicitly already (eg. mentioning Stonewall, for example). Black lives matter started out of this, and while I disagree ideologically with their methods of whitewashing (pun intended) the stats to ignore black deaths at the hands of black perpetrators, I think generally it has at least focused the spotlight back on what is essentially acceptable racism, ie. that any person with black skin is a ticking timebomb of crime and we should all feel justified in treating them that way... = \

But even if you take out the element of standing up against a bad system, there is still that frustration that causes a person to eventually say "Fuck it...". And yeah, I agree, it's far better personally to just eat shit and wait for daylight, but I understand why someone who makes all the right moves and still get's treated badly will finally push back, despite the possibility of tragic consequences.