Schools, Shootings, Children and Adulthood

frenchyd said:

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

I'm for thicker skin and getting over yourselves (not personally, worldy). People are butthurt over EVERYTHING. the whole PC movement created some ofthis crap. 

The PC movement as you put it is nothing more than being polite. You don’t tell your aunt Judy she’s a dried up old hag not if you ever want to be included in family events. It doesn’t matter if it’s true.  It’s not polite. Or didn’t you learn how to be polite when you were growing up?  

That might have been the original intension of the PC movement but it's gone off the deep end. I think this is more what he is referring to:

The part of the "PC movement" that could be confused with "being polite" is "not calling people by cruel epithets used to describe their immutable traits, and letting the people a word is meant to describe decide if a word is a cruel epithet." It's not really the same as politeness, but using such words to describe someone sure won't seem polite on the receiving end.

The parts that could be mistaken for "emotion over logic/feelings over facts" or "censorship and control" is basically "not being a bigoted dickbag." At some deep level you could say it really is about emotion over logic or feelings over facts, and that is in its rejection of scientific bigotry. Part of being "PC" means saying "we'll give all ethnicities/genders/sexual orientations a fair shot even if science says there are differences between us." The refusal to take that route is what can seem like a "monoculture over true diversity of ideas" - a monoculture of ideas that accept and promote diversity, that excludes those that don't.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

That's how it works in a nutshell. Someone claims to be for diversity and inclusiveness and anyone who disagrees with their ideas is a 'bigoted dickbag'. They are for diversity as long as it is not diverse in ideas or thinking. In short one must either comply or be cast out. They end up being the exact thing they accuse others of and the opposite of what they say they are.

Essentially it is a movement of thought police trying to create an environment where everyone must obey and not question anything and only approved thinking is allowed. I think the tide is turning and things will start getting better on this front only because it is hard to imagine them getting any more ridiculous as they are.

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

That's how it works in a nutshell. Someone claims to be for diversity and inclusiveness and anyone who disagrees with their ideas is a 'bigoted dickbag'. They are for diversity as long as it is not diverse in ideas or thinking. In short one must either comply or be cast out. They end up being the exact thing they accuse others of and the opposite of what they say they are.

Essentially it is a movement of thought police trying to create an environment where everyone must obey and not question anything and only approved thinking is allowed. I think the tide is turning and things will start getting better on this front only because it is hard to imagine them getting any more ridiculous as they are.

That's actually somewhat of a fair assessment, so we're largely in agreement of terms so far, good. The only trouble is that you keep saying "diverse in ideas or thinking" as a euphemism for "against ethnic/gender/sexual orientation diversity." That's an important point, and there's really no good reason to be against those things IMO.

The problem with the PC movement is the ability to actually work. It's a lot like socialism and communism. It's great in theory right up to the point you involve humans. The idea that you never insult anyone anywhere at any time is noble, but stupid. Someone, somewhere will always be insulted by something from someone. It's human nature. And then to take a "zero tolerance" stance on it just makes it idiotic. 

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

The problem with the PC movement is the ability to actually work. It's a lot like socialism and communism. It's great in theory right up to the point you involve humans. The idea that you never insult anyone anywhere at any time is noble, but stupid. Someone, somewhere will always be insulted by something from someone. It's human nature. And then to take a "zero tolerance" stance on it just makes it idiotic. 

It's a good thing that this is just a ridiculous caricature of the "PC movement," then. Like the people in the video above.

GameboyRMH said:

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

That's how it works in a nutshell. Someone claims to be for diversity and inclusiveness and anyone who disagrees with their ideas is a 'bigoted dickbag'. They are for diversity as long as it is not diverse in ideas or thinking. In short one must either comply or be cast out. They end up being the exact thing they accuse others of and the opposite of what they say they are.

Essentially it is a movement of thought police trying to create an environment where everyone must obey and not question anything and only approved thinking is allowed. I think the tide is turning and things will start getting better on this front only because it is hard to imagine them getting any more ridiculous as they are.

That's actually somewhat of a fair assessment, so we're largely in agreement of terms so far, good. The only trouble is that you keep saying "diverse in ideas or thinking" as a euphemism for "against ethnic/gender/sexual orientation diversity." That's an important point, and there's really no good reason to be against those things IMO.

I don't think that is correct. 

I believe "diverse in ideas and thinking" actually means diverse in ideas and thinking, which means it would INCLUDE people who are both for AND against those positions. 

You just expressed exactly what he was concerned with... You are for diversity as long as it is not diverse in ideas or thinking as they relate to ethnic/ sexual/ gender orientation diversity  

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

In reply to XLR99 :

Not entirely a bad idea, unfortunately gagging the media would have everyone screaming about their first amendment rights.

Go the other way and have their expedited executions on the courthouse lawn.  Televised and publicized so there can be no mistaking the punishment.  (I know, before anyone even says anything, we aren't a bloodthirsty people anymore.)

The media will go along with conspiracies such as you suggested. They have in the past, JFK’s sexual dalliances, FDR’s wheelchair, etc 

However  they need to be sold the importance and value of the deal.   Actually not them so much as their editors and publishers.  

As far as public hangings go.  The flaw is killing an innocent.   There have been enough cases where even after years of legal fighting innocent people have been put to death.  Remember the standard is reasonable doubt.  Not absolute certainty.

it goes back to the police. Why capture someone and go through trial? Police will recklessly shoot   People.  They have and will continue.  Why not just  tell them shoot to kill mass  murders?   

. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Answer me this, if increasing diversity is so good, what it the right amount?

How on one hand are we supposed to believe we are all the same, yet somehow we require ever increasing diversity? If we are all the same, we are all the same, so why do we need more of certain groups than others?

This diversity movement iis exactly what it claims to be fighting against. It is racism out and out. It is not good. It does not make anything better. People should call it what it is and if they choose to embrace it, then that is their right, but they should at least be honest about what it is that they are supporting. It is no better than the KKK or groups like that except that the folks running it are more clever in that they have a better marketing strategy that dupes people into supporting their racist agenda without even realizing it.

This discussion has nothing to do with school shootings, so if it is too far afield from the topic, I can certainly drop it.

SVreX said:

GameboyRMH said:

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

That's how it works in a nutshell. Someone claims to be for diversity and inclusiveness and anyone who disagrees with their ideas is a 'bigoted dickbag'. They are for diversity as long as it is not diverse in ideas or thinking. In short one must either comply or be cast out. They end up being the exact thing they accuse others of and the opposite of what they say they are.

Essentially it is a movement of thought police trying to create an environment where everyone must obey and not question anything and only approved thinking is allowed. I think the tide is turning and things will start getting better on this front only because it is hard to imagine them getting any more ridiculous as they are.

That's actually somewhat of a fair assessment, so we're largely in agreement of terms so far, good. The only trouble is that you keep saying "diverse in ideas or thinking" as a euphemism for "against ethnic/gender/sexual orientation diversity." That's an important point, and there's really no good reason to be against those things IMO.

I don't think that is correct. 

 

I believe "diverse in ideas and thinking" actually means diverse in ideas and thinking, which means it would INCLUDE people who are both for AND against those positions.

Fair point, it's not an absolute diversity. It doesn't include ideas and thinking against all the other kinds of diversity, and ideas and thinking against pro-diversity thoughts and ideas. I'm fine with that, there are some ideas and thoughts the world is better off without IMO.

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Answer me this, if increasing diversity is so good, what it the right amount?

How on one hand are we supposed to believe we are all the same, yet somehow we require ever increasing diversity? If we are all the same, we are all the same, so why do we need more of certain groups than others?

This diversity movement iis exactly what it claims to be fighting against. It is racism out and out. It is not good. It does not make anything better. People should call it what it is and if they choose to embrace it, then that is their right, but they should at least be honest about what it is that they are supporting. It is no better than the KKK or groups like that except that the folks running it are more clever in that they have a better marketing strategy that dupes people into supporting their racist agenda without even realizing it.

This discussion has nothing to do with school shootings, so if it is too far afield from the topic, I can certainly drop it.

What's the right amount for what? I don't get your argument here, but I'm disagreeing with you as hard as I possibly can. If we're all the same then what's the argument against diversity? Why should we want enclaves of certain ethnicties in companies or social strata?

 I have spent most of my 40+ year career working with people who have narrow view points on subjects such as this. They work largely behind the scenes and out of the spotlight,  but are the backbone and foundation of much of the infrastructure we create to enable the more mainstream environments, thinking, and viewpoints. 

 Many of my coworkers would be called racists, bigots, jerks, and downright pigs.  But they are talented individuals who bring with them great value our society needs.  And they are not always wrong. 

Working closely with them has also given me the opportunity to take their viewpoints seriously and consider them. I have grown because of that. 

 In today's society their opinions are marginalized.  I often disagree with them, but recognize some of their perspectives have merit,  and should be taken seriously. 

 Choosing which subsets of people are right and wrong and ostracizing some of them based on their opinions is a mistake. 

GameboyRMH said:

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Answer me this, if increasing diversity is so good, what it the right amount?

How on one hand are we supposed to believe we are all the same, yet somehow we require ever increasing diversity? If we are all the same, we are all the same, so why do we need more of certain groups than others?

This diversity movement iis exactly what it claims to be fighting against. It is racism out and out. It is not good. It does not make anything better. People should call it what it is and if they choose to embrace it, then that is their right, but they should at least be honest about what it is that they are supporting. It is no better than the KKK or groups like that except that the folks running it are more clever in that they have a better marketing strategy that dupes people into supporting their racist agenda without even realizing it.

This discussion has nothing to do with school shootings, so if it is too far afield from the topic, I can certainly drop it.

What's the right amount for what? I don't get your argument here, but I'm disagreeing with you as hard as I possibly can. If we're all the same then what's the argument against diversity? Why should we want enclaves of certain ethnicties in companies or social strata?

It's not about enclaves of certain ethnicities. It is about including the best people for a given situation. 

A real world situation: A major university needs to have a certain % of it's students be "diverse" in order to receive federal money. This leads to the door being closed to qualified students because there is no more room for "majority" skin color. There are only so many seats in the class and if a certain number have to be filled with "diversity" that means that some qualified students will be kept out because they have the wrong color skin. 

In reply to edizzle89 :

What are you afraid of?  Just be polite to people. They know when you are trying and most won’t be offended if you’re trying to be kind and say the wrong thing. 

Yeh it’s always easy to make fun of something, easy but not nice. 

barefootskater said:

GameboyRMH said:

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Answer me this, if increasing diversity is so good, what it the right amount?

How on one hand are we supposed to believe we are all the same, yet somehow we require ever increasing diversity? If we are all the same, we are all the same, so why do we need more of certain groups than others?

This diversity movement iis exactly what it claims to be fighting against. It is racism out and out. It is not good. It does not make anything better. People should call it what it is and if they choose to embrace it, then that is their right, but they should at least be honest about what it is that they are supporting. It is no better than the KKK or groups like that except that the folks running it are more clever in that they have a better marketing strategy that dupes people into supporting their racist agenda without even realizing it.

This discussion has nothing to do with school shootings, so if it is too far afield from the topic, I can certainly drop it.

What's the right amount for what? I don't get your argument here, but I'm disagreeing with you as hard as I possibly can. If we're all the same then what's the argument against diversity? Why should we want enclaves of certain ethnicties in companies or social strata?

It's not about enclaves of certain ethnicities. It is about including the best people for a given situation. 

A real world situation: A major university needs to have a certain % of it's students be "diverse" in order to receive federal money. This leads to the door being closed to qualified students because there is no more room for "majority" skin color. There are only so many seats in the class and if a certain number have to be filled with "diversity" that means that some qualified students will be kept out because they have the wrong color skin. 

Diversity means a lot more than skin color. Many of the best colleges and universities are filled to the brim with rich legacies. ( if you don’t know that’s kids of college alumni) because their parents did real well their children get to go because of the donations they’ve made over the years.  

Thus poor children no matter what their grades or skin color can’t get in. 

In reply to barefootskater :

Exactly, Imagine if someone proposed that the NBA teams must be comprised of 73% white players and limited to 14% black players. Heck, while we are at it, 50% of the players should be females. Would that increased diversity make for a better product? Or is it better to have the best players be on the team based on their demonstrated job skills?

I don't follow the NBA, but the same could apply to other sports. Say, Chelsea F.C., it looks like about half of their team in made up of non-whites., but whites make up like 80% of the English population. Should some portion of the non-white players be passed over to make room for less skilled players who happen to have a different genetic or cultural background? What about the ladies? They should get 50% of the spots here as well.

This is how ridiculous the push for diversity has become. Discrimination is discrimination, and you should either be for it or against it, but to be for it when advocating for certain groups and against it when it works against those same groups is not a sensible or logical approach. It is just racism/sexism with a wrapper that says "fairness" when it is anything but.

barefootskater said:

It's not about enclaves of certain ethnicities. It is about including the best people for a given situation. 

A real world situation: A major university needs to have a certain % of it's students be "diverse" in order to receive federal money. This leads to the door being closed to qualified students because there is no more room for "majority" skin color. There are only so many seats in the class and if a certain number have to be filled with "diversity" that means that some qualified students will be kept out because they have the wrong color skin. 

I don't think "the PC movement" necessarily endorses diversity quotas. They're a hackish fix for institutional racism, but I'm not convinced they're worse than letting it run wild.

Be careful with using "the best people for a given situation" as an argument against diversity, that's the short driveway to scientific bigotry.

T.J. said:

In reply to barefootskater :

Exactly, Imagine if someone proposed that the NBA teams must be comprised of 73% white players and limited to 14% black players. Heck, while we are at it, 50% of the players should be females. Would that increased diversity make for a better product? Or is it better to have the best players be on the team based on their demonstrated job skills?

I don't follow the NBA, but the same could apply to other sports. Say, Chelsea F.C., it looks like about half of their team in made up of non-whites., but whites make up like 80% of the English population. Should some portion of the non-white players be passed over to make room for less skilled players who happen to have a different genetic or cultural background? What about the ladies? They should get 50% of the spots here as well.

This is how ridiculous the push for diversity has become. Discrimination is discrimination, and you should either be for it or against it, but to be for it when advocating for certain groups and against it when it works against those same groups is not a sensible or logical approach. It is just racism/sexism with a wrapper that says "fairness" when it is anything but.

Each step up a ladder gets more and more narrow.  That means some will be left behind.  Fair and objective should be the criteria not wealth, skin color, or ethnic  background.  

Some people simply cannot see past wealth, skin color, or ethnic background etc.  That is the true goal of PC All the rest of it, is nonsense.  

Now can clever people use the “rules” to evade the real goal?  They have and will continue to.  It’s not a perfect world. It never will be. But that doesn’t mean we should give up. 

Keep trying,  is how progress is made. 

GameboyRMH said:

Part of being "PC" means saying "we'll give all ethnicities/genders/sexual orientations a fair shot even if science says there are differences between us." 

Apart from genders, what science are you referring to? Phrenology?

wjones said:

GameboyRMH said:

Part of being "PC" means saying "we'll give all ethnicities/genders/sexual orientations a fair shot even if science says there are differences between us." 

Apart from genders, what science are you referring to? Phrenology?

Psychology, sociology, biology. It's of no practical interest to me though.

A couple thoughts from reading through this thread. First of all arming teachers seems like a terrible terrible idea. Most teachers are in no way qualified to carry guns in school. My wife is a public teacher and she instructed riflery from several years as well. She said she would not carry a gun because one it is one more thing to deal with during an already crazy day, two it leaves the potential for students to access a firearm when there might not be otherwise and three it could make a lot of students uncomfortable as not everyone grows up around guns. Also there are many many of her coworkers that she would not trust with guns and it opens the possibly of an indecent where a teacher gets angry and fires or a student overpowers the teacher in anger and now has a gun. Teachers are already expected to be so many things beyond just teachers that they should be expected to act as the police as well. 

Second I don't buy the whole there is such a big culture difference in other countries that we can't look at them as inspiration. I lived in England for a short time, have visited 11 times and my dad is from there. I don't see the culture of England as all that different from the US. Sure there are differences but many of the problems I see mention in relation to mass shootings happen over there. They get the same movies, video games and music. There are broken homes. There is 24 hour media. There is a "PC movement". But yet they don't have mass shootings like we do. Two big differences I notice are the health care system and the lack of easy access of guns.

One final thought perhaps the wage stagnation that we are experiencing the US isn't helping. Many parents are working multiple jobs to be able to provide for kids and so the result is kids do not get the care they need.

93EXCivic said:

Second I don't buy the whole there is such a big culture difference in other countries that we can't look at them as inspiration. I lived in England for a short time, have visited 11 times and my dad is from there. I don't see the culture of England as all that different from the US. Sure there are differences but many of the problems I see mention in relation to mass shootings happen over there. They get the same movies, video games and music. There are broken homes. There is 24 hour media. There is a "PC movement". But yet they don't have mass shootings like we do. Two big differences I notice are the health care system and the lack of easy access of guns.

I don't think there's any question that access to guns makes doing terrible things easier. However, I think there are some pretty large cultural differences between the US and England, especially as it relates to firearms. Less than 250 years ago the US was born through forcefully declaring their independence, and then used guns to achieve that independence. England has never done that. The men who stood up to GB and fought are still hailed as heroes in our history books. England doesnt really have that in their history books. For goodness sake, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were prominent politicians that settled an argument with a duel. Hamilton is still heralded enough to be on our money.

After the war for independence There was vast open territory to be settled, and that wouldn't have happened without firearms. England hasn't had territory to settle (on their home turf) for a very very long time, and it will never be the size of the US.

That settlement of The West is romanticized in media, and has been for over 50 years. Kids grow up idolizing gun slingers like Wyatt Earp and the actors that played them like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, etc. Do English kids grow up playing Cowboys and indians? What percentage of US TV shows are cop shows Compared to English TV? I'm guessing it's much higher in the US.

For better or worse, guns have played a huge role in the development of our country, and have become engrained in the culture much more deeply than other countries as a result. The US came to be at a unique time in history. No other country has had to fight for it's independence and settle/develope this amount of land since the invention of firearms.

STM317 said:

93EXCivic said:

Second I don't buy the whole there is such a big culture difference in other countries that we can't look at them as inspiration. I lived in England for a short time, have visited 11 times and my dad is from there. I don't see the culture of England as all that different from the US. Sure there are differences but many of the problems I see mention in relation to mass shootings happen over there. They get the same movies, video games and music. There are broken homes. There is 24 hour media. There is a "PC movement". But yet they don't have mass shootings like we do. Two big differences I notice are the health care system and the lack of easy access of guns.

I don't think there's any question that access to guns makes doing terrible things easier. However, I think there are some pretty large cultural differences between the US and England, especially as it relates to firearms. Less than 250 years ago the US was born through forcefully declaring their independence, and then used guns to achieve that independence. England has never done that. The men who stood up to GB and fought are still hailed as heroes in our history books. England doesnt really have that in their history books. For goodness sake, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were prominent politicians that settled an argument with a duel. Hamilton is still heralded enough to be on our money.

After the war for independence There was vast open territory to be settled, and that wouldn't have happened without firearms. England hasn't had territory to settle (on their home turf) for a very very long time, and it will never be the size of the US.

That settlement of The West is romanticized in media, and has been for over 50 years. Kids grow up idolizing gun slingers like Wyatt Earp and the actors that played them like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, etc. Do English kids grow up playing Cowboys and indians? What percentage of US TV shows are cop shows Compared to English TV? I'm guessing it's much higher in the US.

For better or worse, guns have played a huge role in the development of our country, and have become engrained in the culture much more deeply than other countries as a result. The US came to be at a unique time in history. No other country has had to fight for it's independence and settle/develope this amount of land since the invention of firearms.

Australia kinda the same thing. Except their indigenous people had black skin instead of red.  On the other hand it was settled by criminals. Who fought against the British. 

 You might check to see how they solved their gun violence problem about 22 years ago or so. 

Since then no mass shootings. !!!  

T.J. said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Answer me this, if increasing diversity is so good, what it the right amount?

How on one hand are we supposed to believe we are all the same, yet somehow we require ever increasing diversity? If we are all the same, we are all the same, so why do we need more of certain groups than others?

This diversity movement iis exactly what it claims to be fighting against. It is racism out and out. It is not good. It does not make anything better. People should call it what it is and if they choose to embrace it, then that is their right, but they should at least be honest about what it is that they are supporting. It is no better than the KKK or groups like that except that the folks running it are more clever in that they have a better marketing strategy that dupes people into supporting their racist agenda without even realizing it.

This discussion has nothing to do with school shootings, so if it is too far afield from the topic, I can certainly drop it.

Wow do you ever have things confused.  Diversity was started in University’s and colleges because admission to many of the best ones is taken up to a large degree by Legacy’s ( that’s children of previous graduates from that institution) 

In some places over 80% if available places are occupied by Legacies.  Yes some of those are different skin color.  Then there is endowment admissions. Daddy donates a big pile of money and even poorly qualified students get admitted.  

In addition to those there are connected admissions  obviously children of presidents and senators and congressmen plus governors and other notaries are given admission 

Plus if you attend the wrong schools, public schools for example. You simply will not be admitted no matter what your GPA is. Part of that is due to the poor standards used by many schools, where a non trouble maker who actually does the assigned homework  and most athletes are given an A. 

 Actually non-Caucasian race can place a bigger burden  on admission to  select institutions of higher learning. For example Asian Children  with really excellent grades are not selected for admission to some schools because of their over representation.  

In short admissions due to diversity is often a tiny tiny fraction of total admissions. Often due  more to a really great admissions letter than skin color. 

When it comes to public service hiring  often again it’s who do you know?   A friend whispers in HR’s ear and that person goes to the top of the pile. As for Corporate America again it’s usually connections not skin color.  

In reply to frenchyd :

So, what I'm hearing is that you are ok with racism as long as it only impacts a small percentage of the people?  I don't agree.