We are living in the Era of the Offended

originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing
a reply to: Gothmog

vhb: Do you not realize the Earth makes oil all by itself? It is not about decomposing dinosaurs and ancient flora. It is a machine; within its capability is to create fossil fuels and natural gas.

Gothog: Scientists now theorize that oil comes from further down below earth's crust. They have put this theory out as oil companies have noticed that once "dry" wells are refilling especially in Saudi Arabia.

Its a miracle!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
How does this response prove my points wrong? You speak of America being founded as a republic to protect individual rights. But then you ignore the fact that this same republic is granting more individual rights now than at any time in its history? Even our Constitution guarantees more rights than it originally did, which means we're gaining rights, not losing them.

What points? You misunderstood a key element of what i said. No one is talking about the constitution here. This is a thread relating to social commentary. In particular, that we live in a time when people are easily offended.

Your statements really had nothing to do with my comment or the thread. So i asked "How does it not make sense". And tried to explain the social (not legal) environment to help you understand. It obviously was to little effect.

Before i go on, however, I have to point out that no one "gives" me rights. I have rights. I don't ask I just do. That is what rights are.

The constitution doesn't grant you rights. If you believe it does, then reread it after understanding this: the constitution is a document that limits the rights granted to the government. It is a document about the government, not the people. Everything that comes after (i.e., the Penal Code) must comply with the limits placed on government.

You are not granted rights. Your rights are inalienable, given by the creator (who/whatever that may be). So with that said: i have no more or less rights than I had at birth, beyond those observed with age. I may have a ton more inconveniences, but this is that damned collectivism seeping in. Think about the TSA, and how that whole debacle works (or doesn't).

Then you used the Marlboro Man as an example of individualism. But the funny part about that is it was first used in 1954, during the American Civil Rights Movement! LOL So this symbol of individualism you pointed to was first used during the time period when America was giving more rights to more Americans. How does that prove that we're losing individualism? As an example, the Hernandez v Texas case also happened in 1954. This was the Supreme Court case that decided that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And I notice you ignored America's history of forced assimilation for Africans, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities. Forced assimilation is the exact opposite of promoting individualism. You also ignored America's history of forcing women to live under close minded rules & social expectations, which is the exact opposite of promoting individualism for women. And you also ignored America's history of oppressing LGBTs, the social pressures to get them to hide their true selves, and the pressures to force them to convert to a specific "traditional" heterosexual lifestyle. How is that promoting individualism?

Like I said before, individualism in America is at an all time high right now.

Once again, you are discussing the government. Not the society. Maybe those folks back east would do that kind of stuff....but those of us out here on the frontier didn't have the luxury of being too choosy about who was around It was more about just having a semifriendly face in a very rugged and deadly environment.

Our government has pretty much always licked the boots of Europe. They don't represent me. Bunch of treasonous bastards. So the tyranny that they try to impress upon the people has absolutely nothing to do with me and mine.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct, sir. The constitution is supposed to limit government interference in our lives. It doesn't give us rights. The government doesn't give us rights. Those are ours to begin with. Also, recent laws have made parts of the constitution null and void more or less-the parts about unreasonable search and seizure and having a timely trial. The last has been violated with the indefinite detention part of those same laws.
And yes people are way too sensitive. We're getting to the point where we have to watch what we say for fear of the thought police getting us for not being politically correct enough.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

*facepalm*

You typed a lot without addressing my basic points at all. Maybe it'll help if I just list my points like this from now on:

1. This isn't the "Era of the Offended". People were just as offended in the past as they are now. And people were even more offended in the past than they are today when it comes to racial issues, religious issues, LGBT issues, etc. I've already addressed this in previous posts so there's point repeating myself.

2. People today have more individualism, more rights, and more opportunities than at any other point in American history. Instead of forced assimilation, forced segregation, & forced gender roles, people now have the freedom to choose the paths they want in life. You claim we're losing individualism but you're flat out wrong & you still haven't addressed this.

3. Your claims about rights are both wrong & contradict themselves. Let's break this down for a second. First, you said "you are not granted rights". Then you contradict this by stating "beyond those observed with age." So you're flat out admitting that we are granted rights as we age. Rights like voting are obvious examples of this.

Next, you said "Your rights are inalienable, given by the creator". But this is paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence! You're using the argument used by powerbrokers who wanted to form their own government so they could enjoy more rights/privileges to say that rights aren't given by governments. That doesn't make sense. If they really believed their rights came from their creator & not a government, there would've been no need to form a new government. They could've just formed their own communities like the Amish or Mormons did & left everyone else alone. Instead, they formed a government with the explicit purpose of guaranteeing that certain rights are given to the citizens. You even said this in one of your earlier posts, but now you're disagreeing with yourself?

4. You said I misunderstood you. That's not true. Unlike you, I actually responded to the points you made in your post. You said we were losing individualism so I showed that we're actually gaining individualism.

Now you say you "tried to explain the social (not legal) environment to help you understand. It obviously was to little effect". This is funny because I've mentioned the social aspect several times now & you keep ignoring it. Women previously being forced into narrow gender roles; LGBTs being forced to hide their true selves; communities purposely rejecting minorities because of their own racial bigotry, etc. These are all social issues where the "collective" forced its will on the individual. . Yet they don't fit your narrative so you keep ignoring them.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Bluesma
It's all just engineered to keep people emoting, flooding their bodies with hormones that decrease their capacity for critical thought. If people calmed down they might catch on to the underhanded crap the other hand is up to.
People who are feeling strongly can be easily herded and controlled,
People who are thinking become problematic to control.

Tell this to the Buddhist or Hindi; they figured this out 100s of years ago. Was it a case of 'giving up', no; outsmarting the system by not participating in the emotional/social state (drummed up drama) that surrounds EVERYONE living in all places. They ignore the uncertainty of the social system; instead connect to a Absolute source entity they believe is their creator. Its all about trust and faith in that being to bring them back to SOURCE.

Uhh, you sure about that? India still has a caste system, you know. And it might be the strictest social system on the planet. Just look up Dalits.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Thankfully, times are changing drastically & people are getting more & more tolerant. I suspect that 50 years from now, society won't even remember the stuff we're "divided" over now. Equal rights & social benefits will be as common sense as having equal access to a restaurant (I used that as an example because during Segregation, ethnic minorities could be legally excluded from entering any place of business).

I REALLY hope they remember the things that divided us today, because if they don't they will only repeat the same mistakes that got us here with another group of people.

I don't know. On one hand, I think people need to remember the past in order to learn from it. But I also think people need to reach a point where we can forget this trivial stuff.

As an example, eugenics was the craze just 100 years ago. And there were all kinds of other pseudo-sciences which divided people even further. I mean things like Craniometry, where some people believed head shape determined a person's intelligence. And there were obsessions over blood types, personality types, astrology, and other bodily proportions too. This stuff isn't even remembered now (except astrology), but back then, they were important. "Race" itself is a similar pseudo-science that I hope will eventually go away.

Also, there was IQ testing. It seems benevolent now, but back then, a "mentally retarded" rating meant you could be sterilized (depending on the State) and have restricted marriage rights. Today we know that there are many different types of intelligence, which makes standardized intelligence tests almost worthless in a social setting. But that doesn't stop some people from clinging to the old theories.

I can only imagine what dumb crap our ancestors even further back used to use to divide us. Maybe there was persecution based on foot size, having "droopy" ears, or people with elongated tail bones. Either way, I think it's probably for the best that that crap is now forgotten (though my curiosity is getting the better of me now. dang it...).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Tell you what....since i on't think you are on the same page as me....put your argument in the context of this:

www.theobjectivestandard.com...

objectivism101.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Tell you what....since i on't think you are on the same page as me....put your argument in the context of this:

www.theobjectivestandard.com...

objectivism101.com...

I'll agree with you on one thing. We certainly aren't on the same page. First, you keep avoiding the points I make. This makes it clear that I'm wasting my time responding to you.

And second, this comes from the 2nd link you listed:

Collectivism views it in some other way. It sees the group as the important element, and individuals are just members of the group. The group has its own values somehow different from those of the individual members.

For the last time, I'll say this. Women were once forced by the majority (aka by the collective) to abandon their own thoughts & pursuits (aka individuality) to live in narrow gender roles. Thus, the collective forced women to abandon their individuality to assimilate into the collective. Today, woman have more freedom to pursue their individual goals & lifestyles than ever before. Women can now vote, run for office, be housewives or CEOs, join the military, travel alone, wear what they want, date who they want, marry who they want, etc. That means women have increased their ability to express their individualism, not decreased it.

This applies to ethnic minorities, religious minorities, alternate belief systems, LGBTs, and every other demographic of people here. We have literally more rights, privileges, opportunities, benefits, and ability to express our individualism than at any other time in American history. So how are we supposedly losing individualism to the collective? Be specific. You keep dodging these points & moving the goalpost, which implies that you don't actually want to discuss this. If that's the case then I'm done wasting my time responding to you.

a reply to: vethumanbeing
It is only a theory , though. As there could be any number of reasons. Some actually believe that the oil is being manufactured by the Earth close to the core.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Thankfully, times are changing drastically & people are getting more & more tolerant. I suspect that 50 years from now, society won't even remember the stuff we're "divided" over now. Equal rights & social benefits will be as common sense as having equal access to a restaurant (I used that as an example because during Segregation, ethnic minorities could be legally excluded from entering any place of business).

I REALLY hope they remember the things that divided us today, because if they don't they will only repeat the same mistakes that got us here with another group of people.

I don't know. On one hand, I think people need to remember the past in order to learn from it. But I also think people need to reach a point where we can forget this trivial stuff.

This is true, but you don't forget it. You just remember what tore us apart so deeply that you are able to let yourself look past it. These things require education and for people to stop being so superstitious, because that is where many stereotypes originate from.

As an example, eugenics was the craze just 100 years ago. And there were all kinds of other pseudo-sciences which divided people even further. I mean things like Craniometry, where some people believed head shape determined a person's intelligence. And there were obsessions over blood types, personality types, astrology, and other bodily proportions too. This stuff isn't even remembered now (except astrology), but back then, they were important. "Race" itself is a similar pseudo-science that I hope will eventually go away.

Well they ARE remembered in the historical record and are even taught in history of science classes, and that's the thing. To the people that matter, THEY still remember these things and why they were flawed. They use these failures as knowledge and wisdom to not make those mistakes again.

Also, there was IQ testing. It seems benevolent now, but back then, a "mentally retarded" rating meant you could be sterilized (depending on the State) and have restricted marriage rights. Today we know that there are many different types of intelligence, which makes standardized intelligence tests almost worthless in a social setting. But that doesn't stop some people from clinging to the old theories.

The point is that we still need to learn from our mistakes. We don't need to dwell on them, but forgetting them is a problem.

I can only imagine what dumb crap our ancestors even further back used to use to divide us. Maybe there was persecution based on foot size, having "droopy" ears, or people with elongated tail bones. Either way, I think it's probably for the best that that crap is now forgotten (though my curiosity is getting the better of me now. dang it...).

Language and religion.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

yet we are still just 2 generations away from people carrying sidearms as a standard of daily attire, and people living where there were only ethereally vague notions of law present.

I get what you are saying....but just don't agree. So the nation chose to quit victimizing people for their gender, race, and sexuality. That isn't a collective. Its mob rule. Two different things entirely.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Bluesma
It's all just engineered to keep people emoting, flooding their bodies with hormones that decrease their capacity for critical thought. If people calmed down they might catch on to the underhanded crap the other hand is up to.
People who are feeling strongly can be easily herded and controlled,
People who are thinking become problematic to control.

Tell this to the Buddhist or Hindi; they figured this out 100s of years ago. Was it a case of 'giving up', no; outsmarting the system by not participating in the emotional/social state (drummed up drama) that surrounds EVERYONE living in all places. They ignore the uncertainty of the social system; instead connect to a Absolute source entity they believe is their creator. Its all about trust and faith in that being to bring them back to SOURCE.

Uhh, you sure about that? India still has a caste system, you know. And it might be the strictest social system on the planet. Just look up Dalits.

They are allowed to be of the Hindu or Buddhist faith; and within that belief the 'caste system' works. I can think of other stricter "social system governments" that have nothing to do with Fancy Faith (actually disallowed), Stalinist communism , Nazism (replaced Jesus in churches with Hitlers image). Chairman Mau's idea of socialism that disallowed worship unless to his icon (face). They all wanted to be God Savior to their people for some reason, INSANE. It did not work.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: vethumanbeing
It is only a theory , though. As there could be any number of reasons. Some actually believe that the oil is being manufactured by the Earth close to the core.

As far as I am concerned this is no theory; it is a fact Earth manufactures oil and natural gas (the little engine that could). The fossil fuel scare/scarcity being depleted is a total myth.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

No, you can...
And we'll be here to call you a bigot.
Cry me a river.

I've never actually heard anyone tell a women to get in the kitchen unless it was a joke lol.
But that is kind of the point, you PC fascists cannot even stand jokes, or you jump to conclusions, such as claiming those who called the people who rioted and burned down buildings in Ferguson as thugs as bigots who paint all black people as such...in the past people didn't really give a rats behind, people spoke their minds, and some people actually made a living being comedians and shock jocks pushing the envelope and offending people, on purpose. Now there are armies of liberal PC bullies ready to yell "bigot" at anyone who shares a different view than you...even if that view is wrong or dumb.
The definition of bigotry is intolerance of those with differing view points or opinions, and I'm sorry to say it but the PC crowd are the bigots these days.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
At first it seems like a contradiction, but in reality, in makes sense. I believe it comes from the former 1st class vs 2nd class system in America, where heterosexual Protestant white males were 1st class citizens & everyone else was a 2nd class citizen.

originally posted by: Phototropic
I find bigotry to be offensive. I think it should be offensive. Body shaming should be offensive. Treating women, homosexuals, trans-people, non-Christians, and people of color like they are lesser, the natural butt of the joke, should be offensive.

I wish all the racists, homophobes, and other bigots would go all in and just join the Klan. That way, we could excise them from polite society like the cancer they are.

I think a lot of this boils down to rampant Christiaphobia that has finally boiled over...just admit it. Most of you don't care so much about equal rights or the latest SCOTUS decision as much as you just want to beat down and utterly destroy Christianity.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The PC arguement runs way deeper than that. The true problem is that PC at least in the U.S. It's a double standard. One group says something insensitive and its on cnn for a 24 hour loop. The other group says the same thing and it never makes the local news.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: sarra1833

I'm the most non politically correct guy you could meet. I'm sure that I offend somebody every day. In fact, I hate, no despise, political correctness. I see the value of saying what you mean and disposing of the Orwellian doublespeak that is all that political correctness encompasses.

Thank you very much.

My point completely.

I have no problem being polite, but PC is crazy.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: enlightenedservant

50 years from now people will be in polyamorous relationships with flocks of geese and no one will be able to say that it's f# weird because we'll all be too afraid of being "tolerance-shamed" by an angry mob.

Hopefully this ridiculous culture won't last that long, though.

So true.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct, sir. The constitution is supposed to limit government interference in our lives. It doesn't give us rights. The government doesn't give us rights. Those are ours to begin with. Also, recent laws have made parts of the constitution null and void more or less-the parts about unreasonable search and seizure and having a timely trial. The last has been violated with the indefinite detention part of those same laws.
And yes people are way too sensitive. We're getting to the point where we have to watch what we say for fear of the thought police getting us for not being politically correct enough.

Both are correct.

The government doesn't GIVE us right, but can take them away if we let them.

People are to sensitive. I could care less if you called me a "white, male, Christian homophobic bigot". I have been called many things in my life and the best reaction has been when I look at the person saying that and say "OK". They don't know how to react to that. I have my opinions on most subjects and they may or may-not agree with other peoples. Not an issue to me, I'll even listen to other opinions openly and maybe change mine. why be sensitive and angry if someone doesn't agree with you. It really is not worth the effort to let an opinion mess with you head.

a reply to: sarra1833

Really! I just joined this site today, and from my first post, revealing my dissent over a certain topic and was immediately labeled a troll, and a government disinformation agent, and told that I was worthless as a human being because I don't agree. People want to be offended, it seems, and will stop at nothing to find a scapegoat!!