I’m making this thread because I am tired of all the whiny bitches and bastards all over the world with their fucking micro-aggressions. You know what, go fuck yourselves.
I am kickstarting this thread with pictures of men manspreading. Eat it up you whiny feminist bitches. Anybody else can freely post their politically incorrect stuff in here as well which is the designated subject of this thread.
^^^Excellent call.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapeia
Horace Epodes 8
You, foul by your long century, ask
What unman’s my strength,
When you’ve a black tooth, and old age
plows your brow with wrinkles,
and between your dried out cheeks gapes filthy
anasshole like a dyspeptic cow’s?
But your chest and decaying tits arouse me,
like mare’s udders,
and your soft belly and skinny thigh
on top of swollen shins.
Congratulations, and many images of great men
precede your funeral train,
nor may there be a wife who walks
laden with rounder pearls.
And so what if Stoic booklets like to lie
between your silk pillows?
Do unlettered cocks harden less for that?
Or does that phallus droop less,
which you have to work on with your mouth
to raise from its proud crotch?
Oh yes, I was here when it was merely being constructed, know her well:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ_YFwrmrkI
Remarkable how we preserved that ghost of Priapus in the story. You see the effimenant constructs in the woman’s mind all around it, hating yet longing for it, embracing it as it fades. Ying and Yang Liberalism.
The First Amendment overrides Political Correctness
No it doesn’t.
Sure it does unless you are afraid of opinions.
Flag burning is free speech unless you do it in certain ways, same with cross burning. You can use racial and gender slurs against someone unless there is threats or violence.
That’s the first amendment, not the fifth.
Some states, like PA have no grand juries, so it doesn’t apply to them (I think it implies they are required to have them).
All it says is you have due process and rights to a jury. It also doesn’t apply to states of emergency, be they legally declared or not, when the military is kicking in the door, even yours, be you guilty or not, be they after you or not.
If you running your mouth, say your Rush Limbaugh, and the military itself finds it necessary to declare a national emergency on your mouth to keep the US safe from a threat if foreign invasion, it can do so constitutionally, as per this amendment alone.
Obviously, it isn’t something we want from that, that would cause a constitution slide into dictatorship, as the Fifth Amendment would start eating up every other amendment based merely on what the military declares a threat to be. Why we elect our commander in chief, and have civilian heads if department, and congressional oversight. The sort of oversight the CIA has rejected in the wake of Obama’s Trunp Election scheming.
The first amendment is a legal guarantee that applies to public speech. Private individuals still have a right to enforce limits on free speech on their property, and free public speech doesn’t extend to such things as making threats or harmful slander for example.
But most importantly , free speech as a legal guarantee can’t stop political social pressure from making you change the way you speak-- that’s PC.
Unless it involves social justice warriors forcing you to propagate their speech, like forcing bakers into making gay wedding cakes. Then you have no fucking choice but to die because your freedom of expression is far less than others, and they can force you to support their own point of view against your expressed desires to remain unpolitical, by forcing you to become a part of their movement, and everyone sees your now supporting it, by making these things, and yuck your point of view.
Be like the kkk forcing a Black Baker to make a white supremacy clan cake in court. Absolutely insane. That’s the depths things have been dragged to.
Yes, but you can’t categorically compare kkk white supremacy to someone being gay. Such sloppy operations degrade our own points.
There are two competing values at work here, and I believe that the opposition or lack of integration between the two values is necessary, at least in these extreme cases: on the one hand you have the social-principle of justice in an economic sense, namely the equality of the economic playing field whereby someone selling products doesn’t have the right to discriminate against customers based on established categories of legal non-discrimination including age, skin color, gender, and sexual orientation, and on the other hand you have the philosophically principle of freedom and self-determination whereby you cant be compelled to act in such a way as you choose not to so long as you’re acting within the sphere of your own private life and property and so long as no one is harmed by your action or inaction.
Imagine this: if you see someone drowning in a river you are not legally obligated to help them, you can choose not to act, but if a gay person wants you to bake them a cake and you happen to own a bakery you are legally obligated to bake them the cake. Now, this seems absurd on face value but you also need to realize that when you are in business there is an expectation of equal treatment otherwise we regress to the days of whites and blacks only restaurants etc.
You are legally obligated to save them by reasonable means in many states and municipalities in the US actually, was a rather late development in legal theory so isn’t exactly universal, but being a Good Samaritan is. That’s what the last episode of Seinfeld focused on.
You can have the operand or operator as category and still make comparison in kind, even when you can show logically they are not compatible.
For example, I despise the KKK, but the KKK has remade itself in the image of the NAACP, as they view it as a race selective legal organization fighting for civil rights, predominately Blacks or Atheists vs everyone else unfairly.
This is right about 75% of the time as far as new stories I see, once in a while they might sew a black organization or athirst group as a token, so they can claim they are balanced, but mist everyone knows they are terrible racists. Everyone also knows the KKK are terrible racists as well. You would argue here that they are similar, but not really cause categorically they are not the same, but in the end I would shrug you off pointing out in a uncharacteristic moment of far sighted clarity, the KKK are right, both are race based organizations acting more and more the same, on one point making a mainstream political ploy for normality (which won’t pay off in my opinion, they are little shits) while mocking the hipocrisy of the NAACP and other such groups.
Either-Or calculations follow a boarder logic not of “type”, but what can reasonably be “expected to occur”, calculating multiplicities of a array of tangential, contrasting facts of degrees, seeing how they play off each other. It isn’t binary in a traditional sense, and if we try to iconoclastically place protective, delicate ideals here, they will be raped and transmutated by our opponents. That’s the modes of rhetoric, that’s the logic, and that’s how we identify acceptability. It’s one of a thousand reasons I want people of the Shiavist ideal of Beyond Good and Evil, it is a ill conceived approach to processing information, one that isn’t able to fully track how we think.
The problem is that these two values cannot be reconciled in many real world cases. You can’t just have pure libertarian anarchic freedom in the economic sense to refuse to do business with whichever customers you don’t like. Legal categories of protection against discrimination exist, and for good reason considering the history of gender and racial bias in America for example (and pretty much everywhere else too, bias is an essential feature of humanity). Having different white and black, or male and female, or old or young, or straight or gay, drinking fountains or restaurants or residential zoning or rows on the bus is bullshit because there is nothing about those categories that would dictate a meaningful distinction between those two sets of people with respect to the enterprise or business or whatever else. Although I am generally in favor of allowing anyone, business owner included, to choose not to do business with anyone for any reason, but there are a few broad limits imposed around that freedom; it just doesn’t make sense to have no such limits.
Granted the limits get out of hand. And no if you see someone drowning in a river you are not legally obligated to jump in and save them, just like if you see someone collapse you aren’t legally obligated to perform CPR. Good Samaritan laws protect people who choose to intervene in good faith but end up causing some kind of other injury to the person, such as doing CPR wrong or something like that.
Promoting corrupted or perverse morals or ideology in the name of ‘compassion’ is the biggest mistake we have ever made.
You may not like it but such morals were and are inevitable. Society isn’t simply a minimalist vehicle to anarchy, and if it were then such a society would eventually get crushed and absorbed into a larger more organized society. Because life is all about the principle of organization, development and refinement of powers, and creative exploration and play with possibilities, like the first caveman to shove a stick into a fire and wave it around. Humans need to cooperate and some aspect or that comes from moving beyond grunting “blacks this” or “whites that”, bottom line is that sort of thinking is relatively low on the continuum of consciousness or what we might call civilization.
Plus you’re looking at a species, humans, whose minds are literally made out of the metaphysical, which naturally compels us toward the universal. This is the original basis for “compassion”, which wound itself with biological instinct to find a cozy home in natural selection, then what became truly human social selection (the competition of ideas, memes, affects, symbols, etc.) But you also have a valid point that all this compassion stuff can and does get out of hand when it blinds us to other truths.
If it makes us overly stupid, stupider than we can recover from given the original wound of the insight to begin with, namely breeds an unrecoverable excess, then yeah it crosses the line of what is rational. But even these excesses are the stuff of life, and get ground down by the eternal wheels of truth, given enough time.
Wyld wrote
My eyes must be deceiving me, “metaphysical?” Where is the ‘original’ Wyld and what have you done to him? 
For those who find the word “metaphysical” doesn’t agree with their own particular brand of ideology, it basically just means “ideas”.
Our human minds are made out of ideas, and are made of ideas. Quite literally.