Article: "Political Correctness Blinds Us to the Causes of Anti-Semitism" (companies, high school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the early 1900s, filmmakers began moving to the Los Angeles area to get away from the strict rules imposed by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey. Since most of the moviemaking patents were owned by Edison, independent filmmakers were often sued by Edison to stop their productions.
To escape his control, and because of the ideal weather conditions and varied terrain, moviemakers began to arrive in Los Angeles to make their films. If agents from Edison's company came out west to find and stop these filmmakers, adequate notice allowed for a quick escape to Mexico.
What? You think Jews went to Hollywood to escape Edison's "strict rules"? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that Edison was close friends with Henry Ford, a blatant antisemite, and was influenced by his antisemitic attitudes? Edison was known to have remarked that Jews had too much power, and I sure wouldn't want to work with someone with that attitude.
according to muslim, democrat, anti-Semitic, politician omar, "some people did something"......so evidently, "every American doesn't have vivid memory and a strong feeling about what happened on 9/11".
I suppose you and others can easily quote a lot of people and claim the same sort of thing, and I mean a lot of people...
"I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. I am, I am—like most Americans, I just can't believe it, because I know how good we are, and we've got to do a better job of making our case. We've got to do a better job of explaining to the people in the Middle East, for example, that we don't fight a war against Islam or Muslims. We don't hold any religion accountable. We're fighting evil. And these murderers have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their evil deeds. And we cannot let it stand." -- George Bush
Two days following the attacks, on the Christian television program The 700 Club, television evangelist Jerry Falwell called the event a punishment from God and laid the blame on "paganists", "abortionists", "feminists" and "gays and lesbians", claiming that they "helped this happen". Host Pat Robertson concurred with the statements. Both evangelists came under attack from President George W. Bush for their statements and Falwell subsequently apologized.
Seems you too just don't get it, and/or no doubt some people simply prefer to listen to all but the voice of reason! For me anyway, no matter if someone is Jewish or Muslim, white or black, successful or poor, educated or just dumb, either you are part of the problem or you are not. Put me on ignore as well for saying so, but this is the one most important distinction to make when it comes to whatever agenda anyone cares to promote.
What? You think Jews went to Hollywood to escape Edison's "strict rules"? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that Edison was close friends with Henry Ford, a blatant antisemite, and was influenced by his antisemitic attitudes? Edison was known to have remarked that Jews had too much power, and I sure wouldn't want to work with someone with that attitude.
You're doing it again!
I simply pointed out the claim that Jews started Hollywood is incorrect. What you are doing with that simple clarification is classic Rachel and again well off the mark.
Affirmative action is obviously not implemented well. Maybe it simply kicks in too late in people's lives. There is no point in easing college admission when in reality it is kids' scholastic performance that needs to be improved, by addressing early on whatever the real problems are.
True. Affirmative action is the right agenda improperly implemented...
Originally signed into law by JFK with Executive Order No. 10925 that included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
What's to argue?
Unfortunately, as all too often happens when we "lose sight of the ball," things go south...
"The single biggest problem in this system -- a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research -- is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively -- even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.
The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him.
We refer to this problem as "mismatch," a word that largely explains why, even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities, reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often advertised in college campus brochures."
Having ended my career in the education field (helping adults get their college degree later in life), I saw evidence of this painful truth amidst all the rest of the painful truth about who tends to succeed with education, who doesn't and why...
You don't get it, learn. you're not listening, which is fine. your mind is closed and I've no interest in talking with a brick wall.
done.
Feeling is mutual, but one difference between us is that I never end an exchange of facts and/or opinion like so many who simply get frustrated and do as you do rather than address the point(s) of disagreement. Have never used the ignore feature in this forum either, though comments like yours hardly deserve much else...
Sure seems to me that for all too many people, the "brick wall" is simply a different opinion very hard to intelligently get around, but perhaps best you take up your issues with George Bush and the others rather than waste your time on me. Saves us both a few wasted key strokes I think.
Feeling is mutual, but one difference between us is that I never end an exchange of facts and/or opinion like so many who simply get frustrated and do as you do rather than address the point(s) of disagreement. Have never used the ignore feature in this forum either, though comments like yours hardly deserve much else...
Sure seems to me that for all too many people, the "brick wall" is simply a different opinion very hard to intelligently get around, but perhaps best you take up your issues with George Bush and the others rather than waste your time on me. Saves us both a few wasted key strokes I think.
No, you end conversations the liberal way - by launching a personal insult. Hence why you told me I'm "not rational" because I don't agree with your opinion and won't submit to your viewpoint. Very progressive of you.
No, you end conversations the liberal way - by launching a personal insult. Hence why you told me I'm "not rational" because I don't agree with your opinion and won't submit to your viewpoint. Very progressive of you.
Correction: I did not deem you "not rational" because you don't agree with me. That conclusion on your part is another of one of your ways to avoid addressing the true point of disagreement. Instead, you make it personal. You might also take a moment to consider that all this you describe as "the liberal way" is also insulting. You insult a whole lot of people a whole lot more often along those lines than I ever could. Just about every one of your comments is littered with similar degrading insult for opinion different than yours.
But okay. Probably best to avoid telling anyone they are not being rational, because we all know none of us is really capable of recognizing when we are not being rational. The claim is really to highlight how "off the mark" some of your arguments can be far as I'm concerned. I've tried to back those claims up with all manner of explanation, but inevitably it gets back to this focus on what you consider an "attack" on you personally rather than on the logic and reason you want to pass as reasonable.
I'm really not sure what approach can work given all the various attempts past and present that are essentially "ignored" one way or another, but you do often tend to remind me of these words I'm always trying to live by, albeit all too often not so well...
"I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration; I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis is escalated or de-escalated, and a person is humanized or de-humanized. If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming." -- Goethe
I wonder if we couldn't all do better to strive toward this approach in general. Many of my comments are rooted in my belief along these lines, that might "humanize" people instead of "de-humanizing" them, be they Jews, Muslims, liberals or conservatives.
Correction: I did not deem you "not rational" because you don't agree with me. That conclusion on your part is another of one of your ways to avoid addressing the true point of disagreement. Instead, you make it personal. You might also take a moment to consider that all this you describe as "the liberal way" is also insulting. You insult a whole lot of people a whole lot more often along those lines than I ever could. Just about every one of your comments is littered with similar degrading insult for opinion different than yours.
But okay. Probably best to avoid telling anyone they are not being rational, because we all know none of us is really capable of recognizing when we are not being rational. The claim is really to highlight how "off the mark" some of your arguments can be far as I'm concerned. I've tried to back those claims up with all manner of explanation, but inevitably it gets back to this focus on what you consider an "attack" on you personally rather than on the logic and reason you want to pass as reasonable.
I'm really not sure what approach can work given all the various attempts past and present that are essentially "ignored" one way or another, but you do often tend to remind me of these words I'm always trying to live by, albeit all too often not so well...
"I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration; I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis is escalated or de-escalated, and a person is humanized or de-humanized. If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming." -- Goethe
I wonder if we couldn't all do better to strive toward this approach in general. Many of my comments are rooted in my belief along these lines, that might "humanize" people instead of "de-humanizing" them, be they Jews, Muslims, liberals or conservatives.
I'm going to take the Texan's approach and disengage from you at this point, given what you just said to me. It's ironic that you can't see that you are guilty of everything you just accused me of. I guess, to rephrase your superior-minded remark earlier this afternoon about an earlier post of mine being "classic Rachel," what you just wrote is "classic Learn me" - right down to your insistence that I remaining unwilling to submit to the "logic and reason" you have determined is reasonable.
And as far as "what approach can work" with me given that I still won't agree with your opinions, just face that the problem is not your approach - the problem is that I do not agree with liberal opinions such as yours.
I'm going to take the Texan's approach and disengage from you at this point, given what you just said to me. It's ironic that you can't see that you are guilty of everything you just accused me of. I guess, to rephrase your superior-minded remark earlier this afternoon about an earlier post of mine being "classic Rachel," what you just wrote is "classic Learn me" - right down to your insistence that I remaining unwilling to submit to the "logic and reason" you have determined is reasonable.
And as far as "what approach can work" with me given that I still won't agree with your opinions, just face that the problem is not your approach - the problem is that I do not agree with liberal opinions such as yours.
Goodbye and good luck.
So we part company? Yet again? Well can't say I didn't try anyway, yet again...
Problem is not whether we agree or don't. I've disagreed with many people who are far better reasoned, rational and logical. The disagreement is not the problem, or this whole forum is a problem. What you are and what you are not in these regards is the problem, with me and many others who have expressed the same exact observation and frustration, with your manner of "discussion."
Always the personal "attack" with you when obviously I don't know you from Adam. I only know what you put in writing, but hey..., I've never lost any sleep over any of this in any case, with you or anyone else in this forum. Just call 'em the way I see "em, for anyone to consider and comment as they may choose as well. If nothing else I'm only trying to insert some balance where needed in this forum. Sometimes like with you, badly needed.
Meanwhile, of course. You go ahead to Texas or wherever else better suits YOUR opinion/obsession. Needless to say, your comfort zone is clearly wherever disagreement with you doesn't exist. Given the many comments aside from mine that seem to follow you wherever you go, you're the one who is going to need all the luck wherever exchange of opinion is allowed. More than just luck actually.
I'd be disingenuous to wish you all the best with your agenda, but I do hope you will someday take a breath long enough to recognize how we can all be better served rather than further promote the same old problems that divide us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
