I don’t Trump will win, so it’s probably too little too late.

I suspect that by removing federal regulation, communities can develop and exercise control over policies responsive to unique local needs.

Trump rescinds AFHH rule.

Big military moves announced by the administration.

First, various U.S. headquarters will be consolidated in locations in Europe outside of Germany, including, in some cases, collocating at the same locations as their NATO counterparts in Belgium and Italy. This will strengthen NATO and improve the operational efficiency and readiness of over 2,000 Service members in these headquarters.

Second, the nearly 4,500 members of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will return to the United States, as other Stryker units begin continuous rotations farther east in the Black Sea region, giving us a more enduring presence to enhance deterrence and reassure allies along NATO’s southeastern flank.

Third, the 2,500 airmen based in Mildenhall, United Kingdom, who are responsible for aerial refueling and special operations, and who had been scheduled to re-base to Germany, will remain in the U.K., thus ensuring the uninterrupted readiness and responsiveness of these units.

Fourth, a fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing will be repositioned to Italy, moving them closer to the Black Sea region and better capable of conducting dynamic force employments and rotational deployments to NATO’s southeastern flank.

In addition to these moves and the rotational forces announced by President Trump and Polish President Duda in 2019, we also plan on rotating forward the lead element of the Army’s newly established V Corps headquarters to Poland, once Warsaw signs a Defense Cooperation Agreement and burden sharing deal, as previously pledged. There are or may be other opportunities as well to move additional forces into Poland and the Baltics.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/

Perhaps Germany isn’t paying their NATO dues, or, as Esper says, they are following the boundary east where the new allies are.

The privilege is granted to those who want to enjoy the rain, while those who are having their houses flooded have none.

How can the weather (or in another example, stairs) grant privilege? These sorts of objects cannot grant anything, let alone special rights and privileges. Further, I think it’s fine to say life is tough for those who get flooded, but it makes no sense to derive from that the quality of life or “privilege” from those who don’t.

MLK was committed to non-violence and believed riots intensified the fears of the white community while relieving their guilt. The temper-tantrum excuse is no longer viable.

Besides, committing mob violence and vandalism against people who do not deserve it is cruel. The weeks of violence and civil unrest, all of it at the expense of locals and the tax-payer, has made a world already coping with a pandemic far worse.

It is relevant because if someone does not privilege you, you are not privileged. So it is not only unjust to call people who are not privileged “privileged”, it is stupid.

In order to have privilege one must first be privileged, or in other words, someone must grant him a special right or immunity. If someone doesn’t grant him a special right or immunity, he is not privileged, and therefor has no privilege. The problem is not necessarily those who receive privilege, but those who grant it.

The war zone metaphor refers mostly to the tactics of those involved—teargas, projectiles, makeshift explosives, riot shields—and the resultant destruction and chaos. You’re right, though, that it is not the best metaphor, and accurate phrases such as “mob violence“, “riot“, and dare I say “terrorism“ suffice.

It takes a sheer act of lunacy to claim a riot is a peaceful protest. Euphemisms such as “mostly-peaceful protests” serves to disguise the violence and anarchy, which is what everyone is objecting to in the first place. Everyone gets that there are peaceful protests occurring and for valid reasons, but no one is really objecting to peaceful protesting( for god sake anyone who dare say otherwise is met with the most hostile bigotry). People are objecting to the violence and intimidation against the innocent, none of whom have anything to do with the death of George Floyd.

Because none of their targets have anything to do with the injustice against Floyd, there must be some other belief motivating these actions, or else they are blinded by sheer stupidity and propaganda. This is culture war stuff. This is politics in the street. If it goes on much longer it is simply insurrection, and one lacking any ethical cause.

People are laying siege to a federal courthouse in Portland. Looks like a war zone.

Here is a livestream from Sunday.

Attorney General Barr is testifying in front of the house judiciary committee on the federal response to riots and violent protests. A lot of roaming at the mouth going on here.

Igor Danchenko has been identified as the primary source for Christopher Steele. He is a Russian-born analyst living in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html

He’s also an author for the Brookings institute and is closely connected to impeachment witness Fiona Hill.

https://www.brookings.edu/author/igor-danchenko/

Deep state gonna deep state.

Why do you approve of market intervention when pappa Trump does it?

Why do you disapprove when devil Trump does it?

Donald Trump acts to cut prescription drug prices in US

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53534950

Reading minds again, right ssu? You know what Trump desperately wants, even if he has exclaimed the exact opposite. It’s a shame that such loose prognostications aren’t thrown into the conspiracy theory bin, but it’s probably because so many believe the same and diet on the same media. Meanwhile violent mobs move throughout the streets, trying to light fire to a federal courthouse, looting and assaulting others along the way.

Deploying federal agents and detaining rioters, looters and terrorists in Portland is perfectly legal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315

And I have to say it’s satisfying watching the feds kick around these privileged twerps.

I don’t see how any of that is the case. The rising tide is raising all boats, for instance with the decline in global extreme poverty and the rise in life expectancy. One of the richest men of all time, Nathan Rothschild, died of septicaemia even after buying the best healthcare in the world. Nowadays anyone can be cured of it.

No I don’t think everyone is getting wealthy together, just that wealth expands, and it becomes more and more accessible to everyone.

If the idea you’re talking about is just non-coercive
trade, that already has a name: a free market. Which isn’t the same thing as capitalism. If you’re not in favor of wealth concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people, then you’re against capitalism (even if you’re still in favor of a free market), and shouldn’t mind that word being snarled at that bad thing you’re against.

With those concepts separate then maybe you can brainstorm some ideas on how to keep wealth from concentrating like that without sacrificing the free market. And libertarian socialists around the world
will join you in that.

I don’t think wealth can necessarily concentrate in the hands of a few because wealth is not a zero sum game. For instance when I make a dollar you do not lose a dollar, my gain is not your loss. So I cannot agree with that assessment of capitalism.

It seems to me that the threat of “Russian interference” is largely overblown. If we can avoid this threat by not watching RT or not going on twitter, then the problem appears minuscule.

$15 minimum wage and increasing taxation for some multi-millionaires and billionaires is exactly what Orwell was talking about, absolutely.

It’s more along the lines of De Tocqueville’s “soft despotism”. You can look to the state to demand of others what you yourself refuse to do, but in so doing you grow state power at the expense of your own.

It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/ch4_06.htm

I’m not opposed to wearing a mask. It’s just that I prefer when it’s a matter of choice rather than mandatory, and for the same reason I oppose any mandatory article of clothing. You could easily get the same effect by standing a meter away, covering your mouth when coughing, sneezing, talking etc.i find that the mask finger-wagging is largely done at the expense of other preventative measures, which rarely enters the discourse around the topic.

The problem is there are downsides to wearing masks, for instance a false sense of security, more face touching. So public health officials need to weigh the pros and cons.

You can get the same effect by wearing a bag over your head. Or maybe one can simply refrain from spitting on others.

We should note that “Capitalism” was initially a snarl word used by socialists to disparage a sort of bogeyman. So I think a name change would be appropriate.

It was a direct quote from the WHO. What it says is “ there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

You don’t think that means anything?

Isn't 'state power' the only thing that protects people from corporations? Power has to be somewhere. Where do you want it to be?

Corporations do not possess the monopoly on violence because they are comprised of private individuals like ourselves. Because the state has the monopoly on violence it also has the monopoly on power. So what protects us from the state?

According to Hanauer, successful economies are like gardens: to be tended by some gardener. He says this before reminding us that “the economy is people”, human beings, and not so much like the rows of plants he evoked with his earlier simile. Perhaps he should have evoked a corral or zoo or prison instead of a garden.

It is no surprise then that his “gardening” is to be delivered through the formal means of social control, enforced by the monopoly of violence, and not through voluntary cooperation. Thus he uses his vast wealth “to build narratives and to pass laws that will require all the other rich people to pay taxes and pay their workers better”, thereby increasing state power at the expense of private property and wealth.

At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

It’s a shame the issue has become so political because the science isn’t exactly there at the moment.

According to the WHO’s most recent mask guidelines, “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Of course there are “potential benefits”:

reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;

• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;(70)

• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;

• reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);

• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability.

But these need to be weighed against the potential harms:

• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)

• potential self-contamination that can occur if non- medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;

• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;

• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;(50)

• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;(41, 51)

• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;

• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;

• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;

• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;

• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

To be fair, the term “political correctness” is awful, perhaps ironic in the sense that it is itself a euphemism for routine bigotry. In that case I think criticism of the term is warranted.

Well before the use of the term, this vernacular of deference was rightly criticized by George Orwell, who described it as “intellectual cowardice”, a phrase which I think exemplifies this phenomenon better than “political correctness”.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/

It’s largely euphemistic language.

I don't think your circumlocution is society's fault. What do you want to say that you cannot?

It’s not so much what I want to say as it is my aversion to a prefabricated and emaciated terminology which makes differences on matters of principle almost unsayable. It leads to a conformity that does not welcome dissent.

Exactly. People who dislike political correctness will say it's not about that. But when you ask them what it's actually about, it's just vague progressive blah they dislike. Absolutely devoid of content, except expressing a general distaste for socially progressive ideas. It's about as good as "SJW".

People who like political correctness routinely say it is about being respectful. But it comes in the form of intolerance and censorship rather than polite behavior. The euphemism and jargon creates an atmosphere where no one can speak plainly, directly affecting the groups they believe should be protected from certain language.

An aboriginal, who is referred to as a "redskin.

I wouldn’t refer to the warrior as such. A “Redskin” to me is someone who plays for the Redskins.

An aboriginal.

Let's assume that's true. Do you think the name should not be changed? If so, why do you want the name to remain "Redskins"? If you think it should be changed, what is your complaint? If you don't care, why make an issue of it?

I don’t think it should be changed because I like the name and the logo. To me it evokes a brave warrior.

You can huff and puff all you want but that's ultimately just your opinion.

An opinion that I can defend. Your opinion, however, lacks any such argument.

Lies. This is just how the PC police see themselves.

For you. Not everyone has categorically drawn lines between speech that is considered hateful or offensive or just unpleasant and rude, and where political correctness intersects between this and other types insults and expressions, which is why it would have been prudent for the study to have provided a definition, otherwise it allows people like yourself to interpret it in whatever way you want to interpret it, and, in your case specifically, a self-serving way.

It’s just untrue that political correctness has anything to do with hate speech, and it appears that the only one who needs a definition is yourself.

If people are discussing a term over the course of a decade and approaching it from varying angles and perspectives then yeah it would be valuable for the study to provide a working definition to respondents for clarification, especially given that 82% of respondents in this study said that hate speech was a problem.

Hate speech is a problem. But political correctness was never about hate speech.