The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[actaeon277]

Born in Oklahoma.

I didn't know she was born there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The essence of hypocrisy is arguing that the 'rules' of behavior are somehow situational or are to be adjusted based on the professional or social position of the person

Yep, who am I to hold a preacher to a higher standard than a pornography producer.

 

[nonobaddog]

Yep, who am I to hold a preacher to a higher standard than a pornography producer.

What happens when they are the same person?

 

[Alpo]

Yep, who am I to hold a preacher to a higher standard than a pornography producer.

And it sounds like someone doesn't have any daughters.

 

[BugI02]

Yep, who am I to hold a preacher to a higher standard than a pornography producer.

But one would think that the standards for behavior and deportment would be ... well ... standard. One should not need to assess the standing of the social standing of the perpetrator in order to determine whether either had been breached - you know, it shouldn't matter whether it was a marine or a lesbian intersectional soccer star who let the US flag touch the ground. The condemnation should be identical and unequivocal

 

[NKBJ]

The post of being a teacher (preacher) to children has been subverted in our society.
And for the most part no one is able to see what has been done, much less how.
Or even why it matters.

Do you deserve what you're about to receive?

 

[Kutnupe14]

But one would think that the standards for behavior and deportment would be ... well ... standard. One should not need to assess the standing of the social standing of the perpetrator in order to determine whether either had been breached - you know, it shouldn't matter whether it was a marine or a lesbian intersectional soccer star who let the US flag touch the ground. The condemnation should be identical and unequivocal

What should be, and what is, rarely align. Some acts (and this is just my opinion) are more egregious, comparatively, depending on who is doing them.

 

[nonobaddog]

I enjoyed this comment about the squad.

"The simple fact of the matter is that the four congresswomen think that America was wicked in its origins. They are entitled to their opinion. They are Americans. But I'm entitled to my opinion, and I just think they are left-wing cranks and they are the reason that there are directions on a shampoo bottle,"
Sen John Kennedy

 

[jamil]

What should be, and what is, rarely align. Some acts (and this is just my opinion) are more egregious, comparatively, depending on who is doing them.

It’s not that the acts are necessarily more egregious. It’s that we have different expectations for different people. Sometimes that’s fine. I think it’s okay to expect higher standards of personal behavior for a president than for, say, a sailor.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I enjoyed this comment about the squad.

"The simple fact of the matter is that the four congresswomen think that America was wicked in its origins. They are entitled to their opinion. They are Americans. But I'm entitled to my opinion, and I just think they are left-wing cranks and they are the reason that there are directions on a shampoo bottle,"
Sen John Kennedy

Well, the response to this statement is complicated. The origins of the United States certainly could be viewed as wicked, but with the hopeful thought of more moral or principled future. It's like agreeing to do something bad because you think that ultimately it will develop into something good. I think the many of the founders understood this, but at the end of the day, they were selling a piece of their soul to the devil, only because they thought for good to ultimately triumph, they had to do so.

 

[jamil]

Also, we can’t expect the past to live up to today’s moral standards. Think of your own moral evolution. Then think of how that might pass on to your posterity’s sense of morality. Then think about how generations of individuals evolving morality and how your distant future generations might think the things you think nothing of, would be immoral to them. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as objective morality. I am saying that maybe there are some objective moral standards yet to be thought of, as society evolves, as well as some subjective moral standards constructed from thin air.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Also, we can’t expect the past to live up to today’s moral standards. Think of your own moral evolution. Then think of how that might pass on to your posterity’s sense of morality. Then think about how generations of individuals evolving morality and how your distant future generations might think the things you think nothing of, would be immoral to them. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as objective morality. I am saying that maybe there are some objective moral standards yet to be thought of, as society evolves, as well as some subjective moral standards constructed from thin air.

You posts questions the whole idea of rights and it's relationship to morality. It further questions the founders understanding of rights, insofar that denying someone of their rights is inherently evil and immoral. If by their moral code, the founders didn't believe they were infringing on many people's rights, then they had a very limited understand of what rights are. I actually don't subscribe to that belief though. There are plenty of writing by the Founders that illustrate that they knew they were in the wrong, but only did so to create the Union.

 

[actaeon277]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/democrats-believe-racist-criticize-politicians-of-color/
Poll: A Third Of Democrats Believe It’s Racist To Criticize Politicians Of Color


Rasmussen conducted the survey with 1,000 registered voters between July 15-16th. The survey found that 32% of Democrats agree that it is racist for any white politician to criticize the political views of politician of color.

 

[KG1]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/democrats-believe-racist-criticize-politicians-of-color/
Poll: A Third Of Democrats Believe It’s Racist To Criticize Politicians Of Color


Rasmussen conducted the survey with 1,000 registered voters between July 15-16th. The survey found that 32% of Democrats agree that it is racist for any white politician to criticize the political views of politician of color.

Ridiculous. This kinda stuff contributes to why this country is so divided. No politician should be immune from legit criticism by anyone.

 

[churchmouse]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/democrats-believe-racist-criticize-politicians-of-color/
Poll: A Third Of Democrats Believe It’s Racist To Criticize Politicians Of Color


Rasmussen conducted the survey with 1,000 registered voters between July 15-16th. The survey found that 32% of Democrats agree that it is racist for any white politician to criticize the political views of politician of color.

Well of course they do. Protected classes and cultures. They are subject to all we are with no deviations due to rank.

 

[nonobaddog]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/democrats-believe-racist-criticize-politicians-of-color/
Poll: A Third Of Democrats Believe It’s Racist To Criticize Politicians Of Color


Rasmussen conducted the survey with 1,000 registered voters between July 15-16th. The survey found that 32% of Democrats agree that it is racist for any white politician to criticize the political views of politician of color.

It is that kind of thinking that is racist since it is based solely on skin color.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is that kind of thinking that is racist since it is based solely on skin color.

No, it's prejudiced, not racist.

 

[nonobaddog]

No, it's prejudiced, not racist.

No, it's racist which includes prejudice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, it's racist which includes prejudice.

No, it's the other way around, racism is a subset of prejudice. All racism is prejudice, but not all prejudice is racist. Thinking solely based on skin color, while a component, isn't completely indicate of racism. For instance, saying "I don't like black people," isn't technically racist. Saying "I don't like black people because they are dumber than white people" is. It's nuanced, but that is the difference.

 

[bwframe]

How much weight does the word "racist" carry anymore? What, with all of those who have come to use the word for their own personal gain, rather than anything resembling a definable meaning?

Meh, aren't we all "racists" now, according to those that throw around the word like some used to throw around "awesome" or "seriously" or "groovy"?