Ten oz

This thread is about someone Corbyn call May a "Stupid Woman". There is no point is not an on topic reason for you to carry on about how much you are not offended by "kid" less you are relating it back to "stupid woman" somehow. Yes, your example was that you are "smart enough" not to be "butthurt" offended over something "ridiculous"as being called "kid". Under which definition of example should I not see it as a parallel or equivalent illustration to "stupid woman"?

Going on off topic rants are against the rules as well. Your posts about whether or not being called various names at work would offend you are off topic less they were meant as equivalencies. In your example "kid" is replacing the identifier "woman". In that context the associated judgements would applied to those offended by "stupid woman". If that hasn't been the case, if your context has been totally different, those posts are off topic and you should refrain from continuing that line of discussion.

You are free not to be offended and we are free to have a discussion. However you are taking things further than that by demagoguing those who are or might be offended by "stupid woman" calling them not smart oversensitive butthurt ridiculous people. Your passing judgement on and complaining about what offends other people.

Individuals decide for themselves how they feel about things. It's your business how "stupid woman" or "smart kid" makes you feel. Just as I have no business telling you what you should be offended by you have no business telling others what they shouldn't be offended by. That is how mutual respect works. If I asked you not to call me "kid" and you honestly respected me you'd stop calling me "kid". There is no default scale by which you or anyone else can label someone else's offense wrong. You may not find "stupid woman" offensive but others do. Criticizing them for being offended and claiming to know better is disrespectful.

Illegal immigration from Mexico has declined every year since 2007, Mexico's share of total illegal immigration into the U.S. has been declining for years, and illegal immigration from elsewhere hasn't changed Link. Nailing down what "good enough" looks like is tough to do but the situation has been improving and is the best it has been in of decades. Clearly current measures have been working to move this in the right direction. The removal of currently security levels is not currently being proposed by the the House, Senate, or POTUS.

If it were "you're a smart boy" would you be offended?

This isn't what happened so the answer to the question, regardless what any of us suspect the answer to be, makes no meaningful difference and is speculative. In my opinion "intelligent Woman" would offend some people. I can see it being viewed akin to when minorities are said to be Well Spoken or Articulate.

I think you are ignoring how relative isms often are. By today's standards just about every man alive 200 hundred years ago was sexist. Today entire societies like that of Said I Arabia be described as sexist. What you may not think sexist others might. In my opinion it is good for society when these things get challenged. It helps move to bar for offense from a ridiculous place where husbands can legally beat their wives to one where men must consider if "stupid woman" is appropriate to say. I made a similar point earlier in this thread. Different sayings mean different things contextually pending on who is saying it to what audience. I do not know the nuances for dog whistles and slights in UK politics. I have no idea if Corbyn's remark had deeper implications. I have also stated a few different times that I do not know whether or not Corbyn is a sexist. Lying to avoid criticism is still lying. I never pitty politicians who purposefully lie. Corbyn exacerbated this issue. Rather than obfuscating with BS he could have just apologized and said "people" is the word he should have used.

Moreover why lie if saying "woman" isn't sexist or any worse than "people". In the denial lays an admission of sorts.

Human have historically often lived near bodies of water. Large bodies of water attract a large variety of life which humans could hunt and harvest. Water is also essential to human survival. A person can go look get without food than they can without water. Because flooding occurs and bodies of waters move it only makes sense that throughout history countless human populations have experienced floods.

That isn't what happened. One can 'what if' any situation into a messy affair if they try. I clarified what I meant and we amicably resolved the misunderstanding. In the case of Corbyn he denied the matter outright claiming instead to have said "stupid people" rather than the more pointed "stupid woman". The denial was insult to injury for those who do not accept they excuse.

To an individual how is this not true. It you are legitimately offended by something who am I or anyone else to say that you should not be? If one cares about you personally or professionally they should be mindful of what things offend you.

The piling on in the news generally happens because individuals flatly deny or obfuscate what they meant rather than clearly explain or apology. Also Dimreepr is not obligated to agree with my response regardless of my intentions. Despite the fact I was agreeing with Dimreepr they could have disapproved of the satirical way I chose to respond.

Just making sure. The post clearly bothered someone.

I was being sarcastic. I was agreeing with your post.

That would be up to her wouldn't it? Who is Zap to say what his Aunt should or shouldn't be offended by?

Wait a minute. Are you actually implying that hearing how others think and feel might actually impact our own psychology? Huh, what a unique idea (sarcasm). At the very least hearing others out might help navigate the minefield MigL referenced.

I think everyone already does. You state this as though it would be unusual or new. For example I seriously doubt you behave and speak the same way around co-workers as you do family members. Yes, individuals are different. Perhaps for you. I personally do not find it complicated. Per my career I relocate often. I have lived in several different geographical locations throughout the U.S. and will actually be moving to Puerto Rico this summer. Meeting new people and making friends hasn't been difficult.

@MigL you are setting a rather ridiculously high standard for opinion forming. Whether or not an individual approves or disapproves of a comment is not equal to a formal judgement in a court of law. Everyone I speak to or that over hears me speak on a daily basis form opinions about me. People who dislike things I say are under no obligation to withhold their judgement. One doesn't have to read my mind or have a list of facts on the ready to make up their own minds about how they feel.The burden of maintaining my reputation and image is on me and no one else. People do not view everything I say favorably by default. Regardless of my true intentions I must be aware of my environment and audience when opening my mouth. How I represent myself to others matters. Making sexist comments isn't a crime and Corbyn is not facing formal charges. The legal standard for evidence doesn't apply. We all have the right to feel however we want about what was said.

2018 was the worst overall year for the U.S. stock market since the economic collapse of 2008. The tax cuts and deregulation put in place by Republicans were meant to be a stimulus but that doesn't seem to have panned out. s. Link

It is an interesting in evolutionary terms. On a micro level those who are selfish are potentially more likely to survive and get what they want. Yet on a macro level humans overall survive and thrive best in groups which require a certain amount of altruistic behaviors. Of course it is all relative to scale. Groups can succeeded with narcissistic behaviors shifting the emphasis from an individual to a tribe. Tribalism enables a group to exercise altruism selfishly. So if there are just 2 tribes in need of the same resources the more selfish tribe probably gets more of the resource. Yet selfish tendencies can prevent a tribe from creating allies. So when it is multiple tribes in need of the same resources the selfish tribe's advantage is lost. A business can be an extension of an individual person or a group (tribe). To what extent selfish vs altruistic behavior works varies greatly. I think for any industry where the long term good of people is an inherent priority (healthcare, education, govt, etc) the issue become more difficult. Individuals are often best when self obsessed yet groups are not. Narcissism should be expected in our leadership yet rejected in the products produced by that same leadership. It is complicated. To an extent it is why the economy ebbs and flows as it does. Business environments go through periods of constraint and compromise followed by periods of cashing it all in.

Nuking NK would violate a number if international treaties and turn many allies and neutral countries against the U.S. while simultaneously elevating hostilities from Russia and China. The idea the U.S. could indiscriminately use nuclear weapons on NK is naive. Would POTUS have sat down face to face with Kim if NK didn't have a Nuclear Program? Extortion and it has been wildly successful.

There are several different reasons: - Properly maintaining the Nuclear materials requires a level of infrastructure not every country has. Japan is still working on Fukushima all these years later. - North Korea has already launched in Japan's direction, threatened Guam, and has been very aggressive towards South Korea. So there is legitimate reason to believe a Nuclear armed North Korea poses a threat to its neighbors. - The more individual parties with Nuclear materials the greatly the likelihood that someone crazy winds up with Nuclear materials. - North Korea and the U.S. have an adversarial relationship. Of course one would want those who are adversarial to them to become more heavily armed. That said it is hypocritical. Threatens aside I think there is an argument to be made that it is in fact the U.S. who poses the bigger threat to nations like North Korea and Iran than vice versa. North Korea has launched attacks on it own peninsula and sold weapons to a handful of nation but that pales in comparison to what the U.S. has been up to over the last 60yrs. The U.S. has sent troops into Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Panama, and to this day have tens of thousands of troops sitting on North Korea's border. So I can see how from another nations perspective it could be the U.S. who is dangerous. Yet it is the U.S. who is the only nation in History to every used Nuclear Weapons in war. We (USA) drop 2 on Japanese cities incinerating a quarter of a million people. Mostly civilians. It is also the U.S. who sold Saddam WMD's, trained and funded Osama Bin Laden, is currently selling Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia weapons, and etc, etc, etc. Blood is on everyone's hands. The U.S. might be the adult in the room when dealing with North Korea but not all adults are automatically good. A lot of adults drink too much, have violent tendencies, are selfish, and son on.

Trump is transnational with a focus on personal short term gain. Long term good be it for all our for specific entities are problems tor others to resolve when the time comes. Some businesses are ran that way. Get what you can while you can then walk away with all you can. It isn't a sustainable model but it is one which can produce short term gain at the expense of the future. Like adding increasing amount of wood to a fire will generate increasing amounts warmth right up to the point when the wood runs out. Since the Reagan era one of the Conservative talking points has been that Govt. needs to be ran more like a business. I think that mantra is commonly understood to mean Govt. should be leaner, less wasteful, and more focused on wealth creation. Via the mantra wealth gets viewed as a common good. The more wealthy people are the more they will hire people and the result will be lower unemployment and more prosperity for all. Anything which doesn't directly support wealth creation like regulations & taxes are viewed obvious evils. So the relationship between some business attitudes and political ones do definitely overlap. People are literally voting businessmen into office. It is a shame in my opinion. Businesses and the way they are managed aren't dependable. Even successful entrepreneurs have checked resumes. Trump himself has had 6 bankruptcies. Govt must maintain more reliability than that. Govts should be ran like non-profits focused on community stability overtime.

Hence saying it swings both ways as opposed to one way of the other.