Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Just a minor point in support of calvinhobbes. Speech is a form of action. It has meaning and power in itself. It is not just empty words that only gain meaning when action is taken.

Who is to determine what is double plus good speech and what is evil speech?
 
Who is to determine what is double plus good speech and what is evil speech?

The same person who determines what is a good action and what is an evil action.

By that token even dying is an action that has some effect on someone.

You are being very narf right now but lets distill it down. A listener controls what effect words have on them, you can choose to be afraid of me punching you in the balls or you can choose to laugh it off or completely ignore it. In a physical action the receiver has little to no control over the effect. If I were to punch you in the balls you would have pain and discomfort and possible lasting physical effects. You could of course take a counter action to prevent me from doing that but then your physical action would have a direct effect on me. Either way a physical action will always have an effect of some sort, while words will not.

I won't dispute your statements about physical actions, but i want to point out that listeners can't always control what effect effect words have on them. The punching balls metaphor - I can laugh it off now, because I am thousands of miles away, and there is no power dynamic between the two of us. What if you were my boss and you told me you want to punch me in the balls? I won't be able to laugh it off that easy. Or to give you another example, what if I said "I hate Russians" - you can tell yourself that it's just some random jerk on the Internet, has no impact on your life, just ignore it. Two years later I apply for a job at your company where you are the boss. Surely, you will remember that statement that you had blocked off and forgotten about for years.

These are hypothetical scenarios, but what is real is the fact that your brain registers speech as action and responds in variable ways (ignore/act/counteract).

Some speech acts are more powerful than physical actions (me saying "I hate Russians" versus me frowning at you), and some physical acts are more powerful than speech acts (you punching me in the balls versus me saying "I love Volvos"). Nonetheless, they are all actions that we react to in some way or another.
 
The same person who determines what is a good action and what is an evil action.

So the government determines what can be said and what cannot. That has always worked out wonderfully.
 
It's not that you and I define it differently it's that the PC movement is only concerned with speech.
Must be an American thing. You guys seem to turn everything up to 11.

I could call someone who does somethings stupid an idiot and no one will care but call them retarded and you are going to get a bunch of idiots screaming how it's wrong to say that word.
And they would be right because stupid is not the same as retarded. Stupid is your judgement, retarded is a condition.

You could be working as a volunteer with people who have learning disabilities and love them to death but PC police doesn't care.
As a matter of fact, I used to work with those very people - not for long because it was due to conscription - and I did use the word "retarded" to describe one aspect of some of the children. No one ever batted an eye.

- - - Updated - - -

A listener controls what effect words have on them, you can choose to be afraid of me punching you in the balls or you can choose to laugh it off or completely ignore it.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but that is missing the point by a country mile. No listener can control what effect words have on someone else, but the same listener may very well be affected by those effects. If "retarded" is used the same as "stupid", people with actual mental retardations will more often be considered stupid - as if they could change if they really wanted to.
 
I won't dispute your statements about physical actions, but i want to point out that listeners can't always control what effect effect words have on them. The punching balls metaphor - I can laugh it off now, because I am thousands of miles away, and there is no power dynamic between the two of us. What if you were my boss and you told me you want to punch me in the balls? I won't be able to laugh it off that easy. Or to give you another example, what if I said "I hate Russians" - you can tell yourself that it's just some random jerk on the Internet, has no impact on your life, just ignore it. Two years later I apply for a job at your company where you are the boss. Surely, you will remember that statement that you had blocked off and forgotten about for years.
You seem to be confusing government and private action. Of course words have consequences - if I tell my boss to go fuck his mother, I will be fired on the spot. But I cannot be arrested or fined for it by government forces. THAT is freedom of speech. Of course I should use judgement whenever I open my mouth (or pickup a keyboard, etc) but I cannot have my freedom taken away by men with guns because of it.
 
Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

I think this ball punching theory needs to be tested, ya know...for science.... :wicked:

At the next Ecoboost event, you can be the test subject :p

@All, I'll address the other points made once I get in front of a computer
 
Last edited:
want to point out that listeners can't always control what effect effect words have on them.
Of course they do.
The punching balls metaphor - I can laugh it off now, because I am thousands of miles away, and there is no power dynamic between the two of us. What if you were my boss and you told me you want to punch me in the balls? I won't be able to laugh it off that easy.
Sure you could, if you wanted to. The effect it has is always under your control.
Or to give you another example, what if I said "I hate Russians" - you can tell yourself that it's just some random jerk on the Internet, has no impact on your life, just ignore it. Two years later I apply for a job at your company where you are the boss. Surely, you will remember that statement that you had blocked off and forgotten about for years.
Or I simply wouldn't care (and I don't), because to me yours (or anyone else's opinion) on any group I belong to is simply irrelevant. That's the thing with speech the listener is the one who controls the outcome not the speaker.

These are hypothetical scenarios, but what is real is the fact that your brain registers speech as action and responds in variable ways (ignore/act/counteract).
No one is disputing that brains register speech and react to it, but only that reaction is controllable.

Some speech acts are more powerful than physical actions (me saying "I hate Russians" versus me frowning at you),
Frowning is an action against your own face, not against me (or anyone else) By that logic speaking is a physical action as your muscles have to move in order for speech to occur (and more muscles than frowning too).
And they would be right because stupid is not the same as retarded. Stupid is your judgement, retarded is a condition.
It's a commonly used synonym.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but that is missing the point by a country mile. No listener can control what effect words have on someone else,
Either we are getting lost in translation here or you misunderstood what I said. Listener can control what effects the words have on them not someone else.
but the same listener may very well be affected by those effects. If "retarded" is used the same as "stupid", people with actual mental retardations will more often be considered stupid - as if they could change if they really wanted to.
A) They are stupid...
B) On what planet does the word "stupid" suggest that it can be changed? In fact there is a common saying "you can't cure stupid" suggesting quite the opposite.

Stupid is not the same as ignorant, just like smart is not the same as knowledgeable. Someone can be smart and ignorant or stupid and knowledgeable.
 
It is said that one day a Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. ?You have no right teaching others,? he shouted. ?You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake!?

The Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man, ?Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong??

The young man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, ?It would belong to me, because I bought the gift.?

The Buddha smiled and said, ?That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself.?
 
So the government determines what can be said and what cannot. That has always worked out wonderfully.

You seem to be confusing government and private action. Of course words have consequences - if I tell my boss to go fuck his mother, I will be fired on the spot. But I cannot be arrested or fined for it by government forces. THAT is freedom of speech. Of course I should use judgement whenever I open my mouth (or pickup a keyboard, etc) but I cannot have my freedom taken away by men with guns because of it.

At no point did I say anything about regulating it or restricting it. To reiterate, I was making a point that speech is a form of action.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/us/black-lives-matter-reaction.html?_r=0

Self proclaimed Black Lives Matter activist killed five officers in Dallas. Despite this a BLM group proceeded to have a protest elsewhere where they shut down the freeway and hurled bricks at the police.

The movement won't survive this.

As a note, there is a problem with racism among the police force, however I believe most cops are not racists. Punish the individuals, not everyone with a badge.
 
Last edited:
Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

What worries me a bit is the way the sniper was killed: Blown up with a robot.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the explicit job of the U.S. Police to protect lives, including the life of murderers.

If that becomes a habit, we will soon see drones killing people not only in war but in American cities, too.

Don't get me wrong, I have so sympathy for the killer whatsoever but I think a line has been crossed and the authorities should be very careful with how to progress from here.
 
What worries me a bit is the way the sniper was killed: Blown up with a robot.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the explicit job of the U.S. Police to protect lives, including the life of murderers.

If that becomes a habit, we will soon see drones killing people not only in war but in American cities, too.

Don't get me wrong, I have so sympathy for the killer whatsoever but I think a line has been crossed and the authorities should be very careful with how to progress from here.

I agree, the robot was unwarranted overkill. There already is an issue with overpowered and overused SWAT teams, this robo-bomb is absurd.

I don't see armed drones coming into use by the police, the war on terror has given them a negative reputation to say the least.
 
As a note, there is a problem with racism among the police force, however I believe most cops are not racists. Punish the individuals, not everyone with a badge.

I agree. Here is an interesting essay by an ex-police officer

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

On any given day, in any police department in the nation, 15 percent of officers will do the right thing no matter what is happening. Fifteen percent of officers will abuse their authority at every opportunity. The remaining 70 percent could go either way depending on whom they are working with.

...

That remaining 70 percent of officers are highly susceptible to the culture in a given department. In the absence of any real effort to challenge department cultures, they become part of the problem. If their command ranks are racist or allow institutional racism to persist, or if a number of officers in their department are racist, they may end up doing terrible things.

It is not only white officers who abuse their authority. The effect of institutional racism is such that no matter what color the officer abusing the citizen is, in the vast majority of those cases of abuse that citizen will be black or brown. That is what is allowed.

And I think he is right. You watch these videos of police abuses, there is usually one officer who leads the charge and becomes excessive. The others follow him/her, even if deep inside they may have qualms about his/her actions. When is the last time we saw a video of a police officer pulling another police officer off a suspect saying "Dude, you are overreacting." They just go with the flow, and if one bad cop serves as the model...
 
And I think he is right. You watch these videos of police abuses, there is usually one officer who leads the charge and becomes excessive. The others follow him/her, even if deep inside they may have qualms about his/her actions. When is the last time we saw a video of a police officer pulling another police officer off a suspect saying "Dude, you are overreacting." They just go with the flow, and if one bad cop serves as the model...

I think this is a problem with my generation (at least on the younger end of the spectrum). Most of them are passive and prone to being obedient. I've found that most of the time when I am in a group of my millennial peers it is easy for me to take the leadership role.
 
I think this is a problem with my generation (at least on the younger end of the spectrum). Most of them are passive and prone to being obedient. I've found that most of the time when I am in a group of my millennial peers it is easy for me to take the leadership role.
If I'm not mistaken, those are the people who grew up in the GWB era. That explains part of it.
 
Self proclaimed Black Lives Matter activist

Quick question, has this been confirmed or is this guilt by association? I ask because every report I have read said that he had no group affiliation and was upset about Black Lives Matter(which can have a number of meanings).

Why is this important? It's important in the same way you shouldn't call a semi-automatic rifle an assault rifle and the same way you shouldn't call a hoodie "gangster-wear".
 
Last edited:
I heard that he wasn't associated with BLM. I also heard that BLM protestors like to chant "shoot the pigs" or similar crap so....

Yeah, and there was a cop on FaceBook saying that he would have put 5 shots into Philando Castile instead of 4 so...where we gonna go with this?

Point being, people are saying dumb shit on both sides which isn't helping either cause.
 
Last edited:
Top