Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Cyanide Muffin, Sep 7, 2019.
True, but I would add that California law also requires HR policies to include certain information.
Half a dozen Lawers, for 2 weeks, at 400 dollars an hour, each, in consultation with the most knowledgeable people have rewritten sections of CBS's HR Policy to cover this situation, should it pop up again, or CBS are idiots.
Slight off-topic but I have to compliment this attitude. That is all.
That would be conservatism.
What you suggest is a textbook definition of mercantilism - essentially "there is only one cake, fight for the biggest part of it".
The textbook definition of liberalism has a strong component of altruism - sacrificing some property for the general welfare of all people. Essentially - the cake gets bigger for everyone if everyone adds small parts towards it, and a small piece of a larger cake is still more cake then a big piece of a small cake.
E.g. the negative feedback-loop of health-care: The more difficult it is for people to go to a doctor, the sicker they get, and the more they cost society as a whole, by not being able to work, spreading diseases, and eating up far more resources than a simple visit to the doctor a year earlier would have cost society.
Of other note: I'm curious to read some of Mosley's work now.
If course it is wrong; I can't say I've encountered many liberals who would use either term, but if they did it's no more acceptable than Trump calling Jews race traitors for voting Democrat.
Bigger issue might not be if people say it but if they think it. Granted it is also another issue that I figure plays differenly between races. Political to because if your Republican your proably tired of being the party of racism because your bad apples are less subtle than the bad apples on the left. Jason
Thought crimes are not punishable by death, thought crimes are death.
The thing is - to think about racial slurs in the first place when talking to somebody - that really means you're thinking overall is based in racial stereotypes.
Which, I won't doubt some liberals do, the same as some LGBTQ+ people think Trump is the best thing for their community - but generally this kind of thinking is more associated with, well, the opposite of liberalism.
So trying to downplay this whole story here to a "blacks vs. liberals" thing - as some try to do so hard here - is as overly reductive as saying everything that happens in America right now boils down to "Trump vs. neocons". Which, I mean, sure, there might be a valid angle in there... but overall it greatly misses the larger picture.
Sadly, law and precedent are being ignored in this conversation.
Off topic but it is a Star Trek forum, no wonder in TNG Earth's 2st century history they got rid of all the lawyers!
Lots of good stuff. I'd recommend The Man in My Basement. It may be an offbeat choice, as I don't believe it typifies either Mosley's mysteries or his Sci Fi. Indeed, it shares a little more with the allegorical horror of Stephen King. That said, it has a lot of thought-provoking meditations on heritage, guilt and atonement.
Sadly, most of these discussions do, which is why I had my whole "conservative" discussion early on. It's a term that means different things to different people. If we are going to have a political discussion (as this seemed to keep devolving in to) then I think an agreement upon term definitions is needed. Which, I think you have done, as had @Lord Garth regarding "liberal" and "conservative" monikers.
To me I don't really look at this issue or anny when it comes to political correctness being about political parties but more about human personalties. Some people have thicker skins than others. Doesn't matter which party your in. Then like you can see how people talk about this issue some look at it from a more emotional angle while others take a more analitical aproach. What ideals people believe in don't always reflect how you live your life or the amount of tolerance you have with people you disagree with. For example if you always find yourself in fights with people chances are it is more your personality than your political ideas that are rubbing people the wrong way. Jason
I think too much weight is assigned to political parties and political ideologies when it comes to "polite society". 50 years ago, someone who identified as conservative would be offended by something crude in the media because they'd think it was improper. Today, someone who identifies as conservative might defend something crude in the media because they're being "real" and not "politically correct". 50 years ago, someone who identified as liberal might be all about saying something in the media that you couldn't get away with before. Today, someone who identifies as liberal might say we should be careful about what's said so as to not offend a particular group.
Polite Society needs to be viewed separately from political parties because their interests shift over time. Polite Society's interests don't shift. Polite Society wants to be whatever is least disruptive and least offensive to the most people possible. Since the n-word is something that's frowned upon, they frown upon any of use of it. And Corporate Culture -- at least today, I can't speak about how it was "back then" -- is intended to be modeled after Polite Society.
He wasn't recounting something that happened to him -- He was recounting a story someone he knew told him; (a police officer), including the language said officer used un relating his actions on duty.
That's not how he put it in his NYT article (emphasis added):
Spoiler: A direct quote, epitaphs included
I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all niggers in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in nigger neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it.
Sounds like that cop broke up a lot of booty calls.
No. It is clear he is not white at all, and anyone living in this country more than..a minute...can see the African genetic make up in him.
...as defined by their White Liberal Masters who know better (as always) than the truly oppressed--who has suffered enough, what they are allowed to be offended by, or what to say.
Exactly. Some would love to paint this kind of white liberal oppression into a corner as some sort of ideological aberration, but it is often the norm...the mainstream, "average" liberal who--as a matter of inherent worldview--have used slurs such as "Uncle Tom", "House Ni**er" and "Coon" (among other slurs), to attack any black person "daring" to resist what they demand: happily tap in formation behind the white liberal groupthink of the age. But again, note how the defense of the institution/power/influence of white liberalism is the greatest concern (not Mosely and his right to his freedom of expression/history/identity) how it must be defended at all costs, even to the point of turning on the people they love to claim they are here to guide (think about that)/protect/empathize with.
...and for no other reason--oh, let us not forget its designed to break black people to the point of "shaming" them into falling in line, knowing the place white liberals have provided for them. Anything else,, and its language just as dehumanizing as that they would swear they never use and/or are too "evolved" to use. That would be their lie, as 've heard it all from members of this group.
Sounds very much like something a white, "edgy" teenager in a basement would write, who's angry that he and his other (white) friends aren't allowed to use the hard-r pronounced n-word anymore, blames "PC culture", "SJWs" and "liberals" for that, and role-plays as a black man on the internet to stirr up controversy. You know, while we're at insinuating motives about the other like you just did.
From now on I'm going to treat your texts with that possibility in mind.
Separate names with a comma.