Rather they prefer to focus on being healthier at the higher weight.
Those aren't the conversations I see or hear. I see most of the focus on body positivity, gone to the extreme.
Calories In, Calories Out. I struggle with weight myself, but I'm under no illusion to my problem (I consume more calories than I expend in a day). I understand the struggle; I do not endorse the hatred and anger done in the name of body positivity.
What you did was straw man them, accuse them of making unfounded allegations and dismissed them as being irrational and PC.
No strawman. This is based on the experiences I've had online and IRL. So no, not unfounded. Yes, irrational and PC.
Effectively you are silencing them by painting them as borderline mentally ill and poisoning the well, thus illustrating my point about saying things are PC being a tactic to silence views you don't like. I mean it doesn't even fit the definition of PC so you expanded it.
How have I silenced them? I have not removed them from a platform or prevented them from speaking. Critique is not harassment, no matter how much people like you yell it to be. Yes, these are people with real problems, who seem to think they know better than doctors or groups like the American Heart Association. It is that disconnect, that funny enough, you are illustrating, that is the basis of PC culture.
It's like when Americans say they stop believing in some religion, and then keep the exact same mannerisms and mindsets, but merely apply them to an ideology".
Political Correctness is the idea that feelings are the most important thing, particularly over facts. Take the Healthy At Every Size (HAES) movement. This is probably the shining definition of PC. Of course, if you have anything critical to say about HAES, you are a fat shamer, you hate people, you're a bigot, etc.
You are right. PC is used to silence, but not in the way that you write about. It's dresses up being a bully as "being kind", because you're doing it in defense of perceived (rightly so or not) marginalized people. And you're allowed to do nearly anything in defense of those people, including being just as bad as the ones you're fighting against.
I don't really understand how this specifically will target girls and other underrepresenteds? Will white boys not be able to use these? I wouldn't imagine so. It seems like the target should probably be class rather than race or gender. While I give FB kudos for helping spread technology skills around the youth, it feels like they're using race and gender as the "look what we're doing!" since that seems to generate more emotion than poor people.
So...sure, cool on them for doing this, but the wording is cringey, and it feels like the bragging about something that they're only doing tangentially.
Just skimming through the comments, I guess I'm the only one that really doesn't mind. I don't think I've used the headphone jack once on my OnePlus 3T. I only use bluetooth headsets, so if this comes out to a little better battery life, sounds good to me. I'll probably pick up the 6T.
I think you misunderstand what was being written. It's not that Trump actually cared about anyone, but that he pandered better to the republican base than the rest of the runners.
Phone and tablets are great for consuming. Reading something on an ereader, listening to a podcast, watching stuff like Hulu or YouTube. They're not great for creation (aside from home video).
Desktops/laptops have keyboard and mouse (not to mention all the other stuff like sheer power). I (and many others) loathe writing an email on a touchscreen keyboard. And anything more complicated than an email will be far easier and faster to create on the desktop than on a phone/tablet.
Sure, less people are putting together their own PCs or even buying new ones, but we have a long way to go before the desktop is dead.
Can you tell me how "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." is bad in and of itself?
Capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Can you tell me how that is inherently bad? And I already said unregulated capitalism is a nightmare.
Yes, I'm sure Consumer Reports will keep companies from dumping waste into water sources, or paying minimum wage, etc. So what you wrote makes no sense.
Sure they are. They could charge individually for their services. We don't need protection or law enforcement all the time; it could always be privatized.
This, exactly. Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself. It's when it's unregulated that it becomes a nightmare. And you need to mix in some socialist branches (like we do already, such as libraries, law enforcement, etc.).
FTA: "To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”"
Slashdot Mirror
It basically comes down to: if (insert group) is able to do something, then all groups are able to do that same thing.
Rather they prefer to focus on being healthier at the higher weight.
Those aren't the conversations I see or hear. I see most of the focus on body positivity, gone to the extreme.
Calories In, Calories Out. I struggle with weight myself, but I'm under no illusion to my problem (I consume more calories than I expend in a day). I understand the struggle; I do not endorse the hatred and anger done in the name of body positivity.
What you did was straw man them, accuse them of making unfounded allegations and dismissed them as being irrational and PC.
No strawman. This is based on the experiences I've had online and IRL. So no, not unfounded. Yes, irrational and PC.
Effectively you are silencing them by painting them as borderline mentally ill and poisoning the well, thus illustrating my point about saying things are PC being a tactic to silence views you don't like. I mean it doesn't even fit the definition of PC so you expanded it.
How have I silenced them? I have not removed them from a platform or prevented them from speaking. Critique is not harassment, no matter how much people like you yell it to be. Yes, these are people with real problems, who seem to think they know better than doctors or groups like the American Heart Association. It is that disconnect, that funny enough, you are illustrating, that is the basis of PC culture.
It basically comes down to: if is able to do something, then all groups are able to do that same thing.
It's like when Americans say they stop believing in some religion, and then keep the exact same mannerisms and mindsets, but merely apply them to an ideology".
FTFY
Incorrect.
Political Correctness is the idea that feelings are the most important thing, particularly over facts. Take the Healthy At Every Size (HAES) movement. This is probably the shining definition of PC. Of course, if you have anything critical to say about HAES, you are a fat shamer, you hate people, you're a bigot, etc.
You are right. PC is used to silence, but not in the way that you write about. It's dresses up being a bully as "being kind", because you're doing it in defense of perceived (rightly so or not) marginalized people. And you're allowed to do nearly anything in defense of those people, including being just as bad as the ones you're fighting against.
I use SJW in a pejorative sense, and I think this is fine. It's not the heavy-handedness that the COCs have been.
I don't really understand how this specifically will target girls and other underrepresenteds? Will white boys not be able to use these? I wouldn't imagine so. It seems like the target should probably be class rather than race or gender. While I give FB kudos for helping spread technology skills around the youth, it feels like they're using race and gender as the "look what we're doing!" since that seems to generate more emotion than poor people.
So...sure, cool on them for doing this, but the wording is cringey, and it feels like the bragging about something that they're only doing tangentially.
Just skimming through the comments, I guess I'm the only one that really doesn't mind. I don't think I've used the headphone jack once on my OnePlus 3T. I only use bluetooth headsets, so if this comes out to a little better battery life, sounds good to me. I'll probably pick up the 6T.
I think you misunderstand what was being written. It's not that Trump actually cared about anyone, but that he pandered better to the republican base than the rest of the runners.
If he picks a good running mate, I would be less worried.
You come off as splitting hairs. If you're not able to dump toxic waste into water systems, that is a regulation.
You're arguging against yourself:
Minimum wage, tovarysh Toshnilovka, is a Socialism invention. There should simply be no such thing.
What do you want me to "see" in China? They aren't a free country...
So...what is China exactly in your eyes? You equate socialism with not free, but China is a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Many people like libraries, the post office, law enforcement, fire fighters, etc. So...no, we're not on our way to mass murder.
I think you need to re-read what anon wrote.
the desktop is dying
the desktop has no actual application
A desktop and a "creative workstation" are basically the same thing these days...unless you have a different definition?
I'm not really sure what you're arguing about. I've defined what capitalism is, and why regulation is needed.
Talk about out-of-touch.
Phone and tablets are great for consuming. Reading something on an ereader, listening to a podcast, watching stuff like Hulu or YouTube. They're not great for creation (aside from home video).
Desktops/laptops have keyboard and mouse (not to mention all the other stuff like sheer power). I (and many others) loathe writing an email on a touchscreen keyboard. And anything more complicated than an email will be far easier and faster to create on the desktop than on a phone/tablet.
Sure, less people are putting together their own PCs or even buying new ones, but we have a long way to go before the desktop is dead.
But if it's unregulated, what actions specifically would the police and courts take?
That can be easily abused (see: China). I'm good with minimum wage...that's fine. Some aspects of socialism are good.
Can you tell me how "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." is bad in and of itself?
Just about *anything* unregulated can be bad.
Exactly! A good example of why some things just should not be privatized.
We don't need a pure (any political or economic) system. We need a mix.
Capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Can you tell me how that is inherently bad? And I already said unregulated capitalism is a nightmare.
That's the evolution *if there is no regulation*, so no, that's a dishonest definition.
Yes, I'm sure Consumer Reports will keep companies from dumping waste into water sources, or paying minimum wage, etc. So what you wrote makes no sense.
Sure they are. They could charge individually for their services. We don't need protection or law enforcement all the time; it could always be privatized.
True. And?
This, exactly. Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself. It's when it's unregulated that it becomes a nightmare. And you need to mix in some socialist branches (like we do already, such as libraries, law enforcement, etc.).
Of course, then there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
FTA: "To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”"