Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[TTQ B4U]

Clearly you do, if colleges weren't being accommodating on this issue I doubt you would have this vocal an opinion about it.

 

no but to your point, correct, I wouldn't likely be be expressing an opinion on something that didn't exist.

 

The way I see it, is my son and daughter will have huge advantages over the losers that are "triggered" by being challenged or are afraid or insulted by being faced with a counter point to their view. We are creating wussies out of these kids; but hey, more power to the fools doing it. OMG I'm so afraid that Trump is POTUS and someone with different views is speaking at my school........aahhhhhh!!!! The Russians are coming and the sky is falling......

[Geeto67]

The way I see it, is my son and daughter will have huge advantages over the losers that are "triggered" by being challenged or are afraid or insulted by being faced with a counter point to their view. We are creating wussies out of these kids; but hey, more power to the fools doing it. OMG I'm so afraid that Trump is POTUS and someone with different views is speaking at my school........aahhhhhh!!!! The Russians are coming and the sky is falling......

 

Everyone is "triggered" by something. Not all of it is racially, gender, or LGBT motivated. But we all have something that pisses us off, depresses us, makes us feel anxious, etc. To deny that is to deny humanity, it is human nature with almost no exceptions (serial killers are maybe the exception. maybe). Maybe you have taught them a better coping mechanism than some others, who knows - but to think they aren't going to be susceptible to their emotions? yeah good luck with that. Still don't see anything wrong with providing those who want it with help. Wanting help doesn't make you weak or a wuss or inferior.

 

But I don't expect conservative people to understand or be compassionate about mental illness, psychology, or therapy - for over 60 years they have been treating it politically like a form of communism.

[BStowers023]

Clearly you do, if colleges weren't being accommodating on this issue I doubt you would have this vocal an opinion about it.

 

 

 

 

 

we have talked about those before. Physical "safe spaces" and the alternative therapies that go with them come from psychological treatment and have had their best success in treating veterans for PTSD and other combat related psychological trauma. College are self contained communities that have a variety of their own issues to deal with, including a variety of psychological ones that lead to an above average suicide rate. I am not comparing student trauma to combat trauma, but what's wrong with using something that works for veterans for other groups that might also be served by the same treatment? because you think it is going to make them sissies? because it doesn't sound tough?

 

Either way it still isn't the same "safe space" we are talking about when an institution declares itself a "safe space" by enacting policies to address inequality.

 

 

 

And that point is what exactly? that safe space sounds weak and not macho and therefore private citizens should reject it and institutions should shun it at the cost of enabling discrimination?

 

 

 

 

wow. just wow. you literally have no idea how law and policy works.

 

Let's break it down: Our entire system of laws is predicated in part, but not whole, on deterrence through punishment. Another part is more of a credit system regarding harm to society involving money and time, another is about being consistent about the approach to a problem, and yet another is more about enabling certain people/groups/institutions to take action against specific action in the first place and not leaving it up to interpretation from a broader policy/law.

 

There are a certain number of people that a harsh punishment attached to a law deters from committing the crime. It doesn't stop everyone, but it does stop some. Is it a good system? I don't know but it works to some extent and until someone comes up with something better - it is what we have. when it comes to the policy of a private institution, they are free to enact anything they like within the boundaries of those laws, and most follow the same pattern.

 

So if it doesn't fully deter, then why the more narrow policy? Well in the past colleges would normally have a broad policy that takes action against students that have broken a law, with some discretion to the type of law broken. Speeding tickets? they ignore. The occasional fight? probably probation. Theft, destruction of property, sexual assault? usually expulsion. They also had policies for behavior that wasn't illegal per se such as drinking on campus (even if you are over 21) and not paying your bill. In the case of policies that relied on law, usually there had to be a conviction to take ultimate action - accusation wasn't enough to do anything other than temporary if at all. By enacting policies above and beyond the law, the university can take action without a conviction.

 

Remember, attendance at a university is contractual. The university cannot break it's contract with a student unless there is a violation of the university policies which are incorporated as terms of the contract. If there is no policy, then there is nothing by which the contract can be broken.

 

When you look back at the history of LGBT and it's treatment by institutions there generally weren't any policies that would separate it out from other things like the random fight or sexual assault. This lead to a very inconsistent enforcement policy and a lot of abuse in the system that sometimes even negatively affected the victim. Additionally, as the same "crimes" motivated by racial or gender difference became elevated to hate crime, the inconsistency widened and started to send the signal that LGBT people were considered a lesser group by the institution.

 

A private university is a corporation, and like every other corporation it's policies protect the institution first and foremost. Having a policy that restores consistency to acts committed against LGBT people means that the institution reduces it's civil legal exposure, and elevating that policy to the same treatment as racially or gender motivated acts, means it avoids sending the wrong signal and the negative PR that usually accompanies that.

 

I don't mean to make it sound like the university is completely self serving - how does it protect the students? by offering at least a predictable and consistent institutional approach that gives them a baseline from which to work off of so they can take further action to protect themselves. Also the policy means it is more attractive for a greater diversity of students to attend the school and the student body benefits from overall diversity of experience as well as a consistent approach to education.

 

The overall goal of the policy isn't to prevent everyone from committing the prohibited action, but it takes out some of the uncertainty in how it will be dealt with should it happen and keeps the university from being sued from allowing something like this to happen without exhausting it's preventative options.

 

understand?

 

 

So it's about what a thought it was. A policy that doesn't really do any real good for the victim outside of covering the liability of the University by having something on paper that says "HEY LOOK! SEE, WE CARE!"

 

Obviously my point went way over your head. Protect yourself first and foremost and don't rely on any system, law enforcement, law or policy to protect you. Nobody is stopping someone from walking onto any campus and committing a hate crime or any other crime. I'm sure there was a policy in place at Sandy Hook but what good did that do?

 

If I ever have a kid, I am not going to teach them how to be a victim like many people do now days. If they are being bullied, I will teach and train them how to stick up for themselves. Bullies, thugs, robbers, murderers, terrorists, or just bad people in general will never go away, they will always be a part of society. I'm not saying don't put certain policies or laws in place with harsh extensive action for some of these crimes, all I'm saying is learn how to protect yourself first, rely on everything else second.

[TTQ B4U]

Still don't see anything wrong with providing those who want it with help. Wanting help doesn't make you weak or a wuss or inferior.

 

We're not talking about coping with PTSD or mental illness. My daughter has Turets but doesn't need a "safe space" to deal with it or the reaction of other 11 year olds. She has far greater coping skills than most of the flakes we see on the news nightly crying about people wearing Sombraro's or Halloween Costumes or feeling threatened by public speakers or scared of Trump Supporters or fighting to remove whiteboards from dorm rooms, etc.

 

The list of flakey behavior lately goes on....

[Geeto67]

So it's about what a thought it was. A policy that doesn't really do any real good for the victim outside of covering the liability of the University by having something on paper that says "HEY LOOK! SEE, WE CARE!"

 

Have you actually been to college? because this is awfully cynical and so oversimplifying you miss the fine print. The policy does as much real good for the victim as it can within the private institution structure. These were lessons learned in the 80's-2000's by institutions with their policies toward women. Take something like a rape for example - without a policy the institution doesn't have to take any action and in fact is bound to let the victim and the alleged rapist still continue to attend classes, even if they are in the same class. If there was legal action involved in this pre-policy period often the victim was removed, not the accused, because they were the one who initiated the legal action. Again, attendance at a university is contractual and if there is no policy incorporated into the terms of the contract that has been violated, the university can't interfere with the accused rapist from attending classes. In some cases they could prevent the victim because suspension because of being a claimant in legal action adverse to the university may have been a policy in place at the time. Why not the accused? because without a specific policy addressing the behavior they had to wait for a conviction. Now in practical application they would just try to find something else in the code of conduct or something but it was inconsistent and didn't always carry the same penalty.

 

Post Policy The university can review the action without waiting and make a decision in the best interests of the affected students (the accused and the victim,) the student body as a whole, and itself. And it can do it consistently so the victims feel less jerked around or marginalized and the institution is less suspect of being corrupt. It's literally a best case scenario for everyone post event within the existing framework.

 

 

Obviously my point went way over your head. Protect yourself first and foremost and don't rely on any system, law enforcement, law or policy to protect you. Nobody is stopping someone from walking onto any campus and committing a hate crime or any other crime. I'm sure there was a policy in place at Sandy Hook but what good did that do?

 

your point, didn't go over my head, it's just irrelevant. You are making the argument that colleges shouldn't have these policies because people should protect themselves? Ok, how about colleges have these policies AND people protect themselves? no? why not?

 

If I ever have a kid, I am not going to teach them how to be a victim like many people do now days. If they are being bullied, I will teach and train them how to stick up for themselves. Bullies, thugs, robbers, murderers, terrorists, or just bad people in general will never go away, they will always be a part of society. I'm not saying don't put certain policies or laws in place with harsh extensive action for some of these crimes, all I'm saying is learn how to protect yourself first, rely on everything else second.

 

yeah don't care. This is nonsense. It's really easy to say "when I have a kid I'm gonna..." wait till you actually have a kid - you have no idea what you are in for.

 

And if you are ragging on universities calling themselves Safe Space institutions because of these LGBT policies then yes you are saying don't put these policies in place. Safe Space started with the women's movement and there was a legal obligation to back it up - there aren't legal protections for LGBT people so the fact that universities are being applying the same standard is very progressive. Remember this is all different from the "safe space" related to mental health therapy which is also being applied at colleges in limited capacity. Don't confuse the two.

[Geeesammy]

ACHTUALLLLLLY

[BStowers023]

Have you actually been to college? because this is awfully cynical and so oversimplifying you miss the fine print. The policy does as much real good for the victim as it can within the private institution structure. These were lessons learned in the 80's-2000's by institutions with their policies toward women. Take something like a rape for example - without a policy the institution doesn't have to take any action and in fact is bound to let the victim and the alleged rapist still continue to attend classes, even if they are in the same class. If there was legal action involved in this pre-policy period often the victim was removed, not the accused, because they were the one who initiated the legal action. Again, attendance at a university is contractual and if there is no policy incorporated into the terms of the contract that has been violated, the university can't interfere with the accused rapist from attending classes. In some cases they could prevent the victim because suspension because of being a claimant in legal action adverse to the university may have been a policy in place at the time. Why not the accused? because without a specific policy addressing the behavior they had to wait for a conviction. Now in practical application they would just try to find something else in the code of conduct or something but it was inconsistent and didn't always carry the same penalty.

 

Post Policy The university can review the action without waiting and make a decision in the best interests of the affected students (the accused and the victim,) the student body as a whole, and itself. And it can do it consistently so the victims feel less jerked around or marginalized and the institution is less suspect of being corrupt. It's literally a best case scenario for everyone post event within the existing framework.

 

 

 

 

your point, didn't go over my head, it's just irrelevant. You are making the argument that colleges shouldn't have these policies because people should protect themselves? Ok, how about colleges have these policies AND people protect themselves? no? why not?

 

 

 

yeah don't care. This is nonsense. It's really easy to say "when I have a kid I'm gonna..." wait till you actually have a kid - you have no idea what you are in for.

 

And if you are ragging on universities calling themselves Safe Space institutions because of these LGBT policies then yes you are saying don't put these policies in place. Safe Space started with the women's movement and there was a legal obligation to back it up - there aren't legal protections for LGBT people so the fact that universities are being applying the same standard is very progressive. Remember this is all different from the "safe space" related to mental health therapy which is also being applied at colleges in limited capacity. Don't confuse the two.

 

 

I get it. Colleges put stricter punishments in place to deter crime. The problem is, sociopaths don't give a shit.

 

Oh, and guess what? Hate crimes don't only happen against minorities and gay people, clown. So stop acting like it only affects a particular group and nobody else.

 

For the record, yes I did go to college.

[BStowers023]

Breaking coverage of Rep. Scalise shooting

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Rep. Roger Williams were shot and multiple congressional aides were also hit by a gunman with a rifle who opened fire at a GOP baseball practice in Virginia Wednesday morning, Fox News confirmed.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/14/virginia-gop-baseball-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html

 

 

I guess the shooter asked if they were Democrats or Republicans and when the answer was Republicans, he started shooting.

[10phone2]

Liberal logic: Demand everyone to accept LBGT even if it's against there religion while wanting to accept refugees whose culture and Sharia Law does not allow it.

 

Liberal logic: It's a great idea to build high rise building out of wood since its better for than the environment while protesting against logging

[CRed05]

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/freud.html

[Geeesammy]

Damn, is that Geeto's dad?

[BStowers023]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/14/mcauliffe_calls_for_gun_control_after_republican_shooting_we_lose_93_million_people_a_day.html

 

 

 

We need to have a real long look at gun violence in this country. We are losing 93 million Americans EVERY DAY! due to gun violence. 93 MILLION!

[TTQ B4U]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/14/mcauliffe_calls_for_gun_control_after_republican_shooting_we_lose_93_million_people_a_day.html

 

We need to have a real long look at gun violence in this country. We are losing 93 million Americans EVERY DAY! due to gun violence. 93 MILLION!

 

I saw him say that on TV multiple times. LOL as he was so into his talking points and script that he didn't even process what he was saying.

 

I also saw another interview a couple days ago where they kept saying there were 35k murders by gun every year too.

[wagner]

Breaking coverage of Rep. Scalise shooting

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Rep. Roger Williams were shot and multiple congressional aides were also hit by a gunman with a rifle who opened fire at a GOP baseball practice in Virginia Wednesday morning, Fox News confirmed.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/14/virginia-gop-baseball-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html

 

 

I guess the shooter asked if they were Democrats or Republicans and when the answer was Republicans, he started shooting.

 

Doesn't fit the narrative, buried in news cycle, but that cop in Minnesota was found not guilty so that will flare up again.

[Geeto67]

Breaking coverage of Rep. Scalise shooting

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Rep. Roger Williams were shot and multiple congressional aides were also hit by a gunman with a rifle who opened fire at a GOP baseball practice in Virginia Wednesday morning, Fox News confirmed.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/14/virginia-gop-baseball-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html

 

 

I guess the shooter asked if they were Democrats or Republicans and when the answer was Republicans, he started shooting.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/15/steve-scalise-shooting-liberal-conservative-vitriol-blame/396731001/

[BStowers023]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/15/steve-scalise-shooting-liberal-conservative-vitriol-blame/396731001/

 

Okay?

[Brandon]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/15/steve-scalise-shooting-liberal-conservative-vitriol-blame/396731001/

 

He had a list in his pocket of only republicans, specifically freedom caucus members. It was purely a political motivated shooting. The irony, he was a liberal wacko...Narrative twist.

 

DUH he was a fucking nut job with mental health problems; of course that is underlying.

 

USA todays article is weak.

[Geeto67]

Okay?

 

It's an interesting read on the political division in this country, how it exists on both sides of the aisle historically, and how this is more a product of mental instability than political riling.

 

Since your pattern of posting this type of stuff is usually to say "look at the mean liberals attacking us violently" I thought this provided some needed perspective.

 

I don't advocate violence ever, including those against whom I disagree with politically. We have a political system and either you have faith in that system, in america, or you don't. Violence like this is unwarranted, unnecessary, and a tragedy. So far nobody has died as a result, and I am thankful for that. I don't know what else you want to discuss about it.

 

 

edit: and boom there it is - you couldn't help yourself could you

 

 

He had a list in his pocket of only republicans, specifically freedom caucus members. It was purely a political motivated shooting. The irony, he was a liberal wacko...Narrative twist.

 

DUH he was a fucking nut job with mental health problems; of course that is underlying.

 

No he was mentally unstable, period. This time he happens to be liberal, next time the next one may be conservative. Neither party has an exclusivity with mental illness. But that doesn't fit your conservative moral superiority where you look at all liberalism as only extreme and a some form of mental illness.

 

USA todays article is weak.

 

you think it is weak because it doesn't confirm your bias of violence being a liberal phenomenon and this being a result of political agitation. How can you ever feel superior to liberals if your own are equally susceptible?

[Brandon]

It's an interesting read on the political division in this country, how it exists on both sides of the aisle historically, and how this is more a product of mental instability than political riling.

 

Since your pattern of posting this type of stuff is usually to say "look at the mean liberals attacking us violently" I thought this provided some needed perspective.

 

I don't advocate violence ever, including those against whom I disagree with politically. We have a political system and either you have faith in that system, in america, or you don't. Violence like this is unwarranted, unnecessary, and a tragedy. So far nobody has died as a result, and I am thankful for that. I don't know what else you want to discuss about it.

 

 

edit: and boom there it is - you couldn't help yourself could you

 

 

 

 

No he was mentally unstable, period. This time he happens to be liberal, next time the next one may be conservative. Neither party has an exclusivity with mental illness. But that doesn't fit your conservative moral superiority where you look at all liberalism as only extreme and a some form of mental illness.

 

 

 

you think it is weak because it doesn't confirm your bias of violence being a liberal phenomenon and this being a result of political agitation. How can you ever feel superior to liberals if your own are equally susceptible?

 

You're right, it could be a conservative next time. It could even be *gasp* and independent. Would that sell "clicks"?

 

In all seriousness geeto if this had been a raging catholic crusading conservative I would have described him as a conservative nut job...which fits the media propaganda machines agenda. I just find it mostly ironic that *generally* liberals paint a picture of foaming rapid conservatives and their guns...In other words don't throw rocks in glass houses.

 

Crazy is crazy, and we understand you are liberal (which really doesn't matter to me in the least bit; honestly I enjoy most of your banter because it pisses off members and makes me lolz). But know I feel superior to you, it gives me all the feels.

[Geeto67]

 

I just find it mostly ironic that *generally* liberals paint a picture of foaming rapid conservatives and their guns...In other words don't throw rocks in glass houses.

 

You are using a very small extreme group to represent the whole again. *generally* this doesn't happen, it does happen but it is not mainstream and is infrequent - usually requiring a tragic event to even provide any volume or attention. You are just too quick to lump everybody on the other side together then whine like a little girl with a skinned knee when someone does it to you. The only irony here is that you call anyone a hypocrite.

 

But know I feel superior to you, it gives me all the feels.

Whatever your youthful insecurities need to keep you going man, how you feel about yourself doesn't impact my life one way or the other.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Geeto67

[cdk 4219]

democrats are very angry little people with hurt lady parts, always blaming others.

[Geeto67]

Found this to be a really interesting segment about when politics and government funding for scientific research clash:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/21/533840751/episode-779-shrimp-fight-club

 

It's a podcast, the article is just there as a summary, click the play button in the upper left corner to play.

 

I get the feeling that there are a lot of people on here that think that the government just hands out money without any kind of formal process and this gives a small glimpse into the more complex machine behind science and politics.

[BStowers023]

http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt325/BStowers023/4BEAB04E-1DF7-495B-A426-FCD3FD1B4E78_zps0sbg8ycb.jpg

[Geeto67]

This is Aldous Huxley speaking in the 1950's about the future of politics and society. It's a fascinating glimpse back about how the concerts of our grandfathers and fathers are our concerns today:

 

[TTQ B4U]

I get the feeling that there are a lot of people on here that think that the government just hands out money without any kind of formal process and this gives a small glimpse into the more complex machine behind science and politics.

 

I think there are a lot of people here who believe there actually is an over complicated set of processes to dole out money that we don't have towards a number of programs and a lot of pet projects. Overall the system needs to be made super simple and involve far less people and gov't than we currently have.