Digitalelf wrote:
The laws on immigration may have changed since your Great Grandfather's time, but it sounds like he still followed the laws of his time... Just sayin'
Hee hee! Mine didn't!
Vive le Galt!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is an excellent video.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The baby stroller tips the balance from excellent to pure awesome.
|
History is history, today's laws are what must be followed.You are again being dishonest. people coming here is not and has never been the issue, it is about legal procedures and some choosing to ignore those laws.Legal procedures? Like trading beads for land legal procedures or more the jobs for Irish/Italian/German votes?
You can't make the statement you just made with a straight face unless your history teachers failed you completely.
I am sure you feel the same way about gun laws. You weren't calling to repeal the assault weapons ban, were you?
Just for the record, I am in favor of both assault weapons and illegal immigrants.
Vive le Galt!
Hmm. Okay, well, I want to arm illegal immigrants with assault weapons.
Consistent or not consistent?
|
I am sure you feel the same way about gun laws. You weren't calling to repeal the assault weapons ban, were you?History is history, today's laws are what must be followed.You are again being dishonest. people coming here is not and has never been the issue, it is about legal procedures and some choosing to ignore those laws.Legal procedures? Like trading beads for land legal procedures or more the jobs for Irish/Italian/German votes?
You can't make the statement you just made with a straight face unless your history teachers failed you completely.
There is currently no assault weapons ban that i am aware of and if there were i would be for repealing it. I would not however just go buy what i want and say the law was wrong. i would seek to change what the law itself is rather than just choose to ignore it. Same for immigration, maybe the standards for how people come here need to change, just doing what you want regardless of the law is not the answer
Back to gender stuff:
I don't check in with the news for a few days and what happens?
Naked feminists attack Berlusconi
Vive le Galt!
NSFW
I love Russia Today.
Back to gender stuff:
I don't check in with the news for a few days and what happens?
Naked feminists attack Berlusconi
Vive le Galt!
NSFW
He must have thought he was in a bunga bunga party. LOL. "Now this is how we should always vote!"
I love Russia Today.
That group is sexist.
|
|
That pervasive economic disparity between different ethnicities is a huge part of the problem which AA is the current solution for. It is not just racial bias, but all of the other things that are influenced by face which you are not thinking of because you are (I surmise) a member of a relatively privilaged ethnicity, so you dont ever have to think about.
First interesting fact : seeing AA as something that helps equality is not an universal truth : it heavily depends on the culture of the country.
Let's take a person who is a strong supporter of equality. He would most likely be pro-AA in the US.
The same person would most likely be against AA if he lived in France. Because AA is seen there as compounding the problem of racism by treating people differently according to their race.
Second interesting fact : in France, with the slow integration of immigrants from Africa (including Northern Africa) and their families in the society, the stigma is slowly moving from having the wrong skin color to having the wrong accent. Of course, skin-based racism still exists, but the average reaction depends now far more on how you speak. A slang-speaking white person will generate more anxiety in the average person than a well-spoken black person. Such was not the case 20-30 years ago.
Finally, all these debates about "entitlement" tend to put heterosexual white males as the "entitled", but that is an error.
Each factor of entitlement has to be considered separately.
That is, a heterosexual black man is entitled when compared to a homosexual black man. A heterosexual white woman is entitled when compared to a heterosexual black woman. And so on and so forth.
Food for thought.
Hmm. Okay, well, I want to arm illegal immigrants with assault weapons.
Consistent or not consistent?
More undocumented workers I'd like to arm with assault weapons.
Vive le Galt!
Man, there sure are a dearth of good politroll threads these days. Makes me miss Citizen Duck.
Anyway, I was over a comrade's house this morning and we were talking about gun control and how we hate it and then I was telling him about all of this white/male/straight privilege stuff, which, I have to say, having spent two decades on the revolutionary left, I'd never really heard much about.
Anyway, I was telling him about what I have learned from these threads and he responded "Yeah, well, you know what I'm unpacking from my invisible backpack? An AR-15!"
Hee hee!
Makes me miss Citizen Duck.
/slap
Don't believe him, Paizonians. Comrade Meatrace loved Citizen Duck.
In the same way you love the bourgeoisie, comrade.
I also heard that Comrade Meatrace goes and visits Citizen Aretas every other week.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also heard that Comrade Meatrace goes and visits Citizen Aretas every other week.
Now that takes me back...
*applies power drill to eye socket*
Not anymore. All better!
First and last page of this thread are... Not similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I work on this theory that it is better for me to stake out a presence on a thread and hang out there. I figure confining my aura of politroll awesomeness is better off being caged into a couple of places instead of bouncing around starting my own threads.
I could do that, though, if you prefer.
As for on-topicness,
Happy International Women's Day!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{rolls 1 on Common Sense check, decides to post in thread:}
So, maybe when we all see a friend/acquaintance/co-worker dude or dudette being a little creepy, maybe we could politely pull then aside and let them know? Hopefully, a little more gently and empathetically than this or this or this? (links NSFW: language)
{rolls 1 on Common Sense check, decides to post in thread:}
So, maybe when we all see a friend/acquaintance/co-worker dude or dudette being a little creepy, maybe we could politely pull then aside and let them know? Hopefully, a little more gently and empathetically than this or this or this? (links NSFW: language)
ROTFL!!!!!!!!
Also, common sense is uncommon lack of curiosity.
That there's some funny shiznit, Comrade Slaad.
"Zeke, you have the Chesire f**king Cat of creepy smiles."
Noted, and saved for later. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Zeke, you have the Chesire f**king Cat of creepy smiles."
Noted, and saved for later. :P
I've had this told to me before...
Goblins do it in the street!
But even I would think twice about doing it in the African bush.
:(
At least, you don't have to be afraid of lions. They have standards Hyenas, on the other hand...
Seriously, though, that's one bad way to die.
I know there's some transgendered people around here, so let me ask you guys and gals something:
So, transsexual issues seem to have come to the fore while I was on commie activist hibernation, but, whatever, I don't care, do what you want as it long as it doesn't hurt others, right? But then he went on to tell me that the official way to do it was a lot of bureaucratic hoop-jumping and onerous twice-a-week psych evaluations, blah blah blah, I don't even know, and that he was basically doing it backalley butcher style. When I expressed some concerns about whether that was a smart thing to do, he replied that he'd researched it on the internet. [Facepalm]
Now, I can only imagine that getting sexual reassignment surgery from someone not licensed to do any such thing has got to be a pretty stupid and dangerous thing to do, but I was wondering if anyone knew how common this is?
I don't know about how common it is, but I recall reading that in general a fairly rigorous pre-surgery counseling process is required. The doctors want to be really really certain that the person is going to be okay with living life as the opposite sex before an sort of operations begin.
I think Doodlebug was talking about unlicensed/back ally gender reassignment surgery (Which, I agree, sounds like a horrible idea.)
But yeah, from what i've heard any candidate for gender reassignment has to go through a ton of counseling/orientation for the reason you state.
|
|
I think Doodlebug was talking about unlicensed/back ally gender reassignment surgery (Which, I agree, sounds like a horrible idea.)
But yeah, from what i've heard any candidate for gender reassignment has to go through a ton of counseling/orientation for the reason you state.
They do, for exactly this reason. They also have to spend a significant portion of ime pre-op living as the new gender. I have a friend going through it and it's quite a strain for her.
Yes, I was asking about the frequency of back alley reassignments. I can see where it might have been confusing by throwing in the word "onerous."
|
I don't know about how common it is, but I recall reading that in general a fairly rigorous pre-surgery counseling process is required. The doctors want to be really really certain that the person is going to be okay with living life as the opposite sex before an sort of operations begin.
That's is true for realy all surgeries, especially elective ones that will have either substantial social sideeffects or run a risk of irrepairable (I don't want to say mistakes), issues.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an etymological issue that has a lot more to do with usage in an automatically sensitive, rage-inducing context than its neutral scientific origin. I am guessing that the word 'privilege' acquired its baggage in much the same manner, because the issue itself is very difficult to discuss without expressing the anger and frustration it causes. Which is very easy to read as personal blame even when it's not.
The problem with the term "privilege" is that the word is much older and has a much longer history in the English language than its use as a modern sociological descriptive term. To forget this is to be shockingly ignorant of the 'common' language we are using to communicate, and while most dictionary definitions of privilege appear to be neutral, the word has had negative connotations in many of the contexts in which it has been used for centuries. It already had the baggage, before anyone involved in examining these issues decided to present the concept of "male privilege". One may even argue that the term "privilege" was originally chosen with the intention of being confrontational about this issue.
No, I don't have an answer for a better term to use to discuss this issue, and I'll try to remember that "privilege" isn't intended as a deliberate negative attack word in sociological discussions (so long as the persons using the term are using it as an academic/sociological term, not an attack word). But do try to remember that in a shared language such as ours, the words you use continue to have their customary and traditional meanings as set by long-term common usage... I don't think you can just 'hand-wave' all that away as if the word were never used in those ways before.
At one stage our Head of State Queen Elizabeth, The Governor General, The Prime Minister, and a majority of State Premiers were female.
Better than that:
The Queen -> Governor General -> State Governor of NSW
All women!
Prime Minister->State Premier (NSW)->Lord Mayor of Sydney->Local Mayor.
All women!
(This was when Keneally was still in power in NSW)
So that meant in both cases there was a clear line from top to bottom on bith Head of State through to elected officials where every single point of representation was a woman.
In seven tiers of representation from my neighbourhood through to the PM and all the way back to England there was not a man to be seen.
Reckon we are doing pretty well honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and I'll try to remember that "privilege" isn't intended as a deliberate negative attack word in sociological discussions (so long as the persons using the term are using it as an academic/sociological term, not an attack word).
Good luck with that, it is used as a gag, a tool of censorship, a weapo of dismissal, and an attempt to sieze the moral high ground in any debate.
My mother and I were debating the merits of enrolling in Triple A and she listed all of the privileges of membership and I told her to stop gagging me.
stuff
I was all set to reply to BNW, but alas it is just a doppleganger.
Nonetheless I shall present the same argument: science does the same thing with language which I get very annoyed by. The cycle goes like this:
1)A word is applied to a general phenomenon, thing, etc. in the vernacular.
2)Science (or social science in the case of privilege) co-opts this word to describe a tangential phenomenon which doesn't wholly overlap.
3)The rhetorical definition used by science becomes rarified.
4)The scientific community insists their term overrule vernacular use.
The example I'll use is strawberries.
I mean, they're called strawberries, right? They must be berries.
They were considered berries for a very long time, and a berry is a biological term for a specific phenomena in plants.
Scientists realize that, of all berries as defined by the vernacular, strawberries don't, in fact, fit (nor do some others) so they get pushed out of the category so that the term can have a much more precise meaning in biology.
People correct you when you call strawberries a berry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. I never realized strawberries weren't berries...
Huh. I never realized strawberries weren't berries...
They are.
Don't believe the hype.They're also berry delicious.
