rumitoid

The point is trying to make them all bottom-feeders.

Seth

Take a trip to L.A. or S.F. sometime.

While it's true that good ol' boy Lyndon Baines (where they came up with a middle name like "Baines" is anybody's guess) Johnson was the man responsible for destroying much of the black family unit and trapping generations of b****s in the quagmire of single parent homes, welfare and housing projects and all the misery that goes with it, I know a lot of b****s who avoided the trap and live hard working, successful lives. A former girlfriend of mine came from such a family, one that endured the Jim Crow era snd, while mostly blue collar, lives like any middle class white family.

Having said that, liberal run cities like the two California locales I mentioned above have as many if not more white males collecting welfare and food stamps (EBT) within their boundaries, as well as massive numbers collecting SSI for "conditions" that are not disabilities. Most of these are undomiciled, not because they are disabled, but because they prefer sitting around smoking weed all day or using meth and have no interest in taking any responsibility for themselves.

The "liberals" running the political machines in these places take money from the myriad organizations that specialize in "helping" the homeless who, in turn, receive tax deductible donations from both corporate and private sources and finding from city, state and federal agencies. In the final analysis, the taxpayer funds these lazy individuals' permanent vacations, most having no clue that the bulk of their taxes money in this arena ends up in the pockets of drug dealers -- criminals, not legitimate pharmacists.

In that regard, there is little to attribute to any kind of r****m, but there are billions in welfare and related tax allocations there.

Would it be un-PC to criticize these expenditures for what amount to white parasites?

Just wondering...

rumitoid

You appear to base this entire post on per-suppositions, such as "Johnson was the man responsible for destroying much of the black family unit and trapping generations of b****s in the quagmire of single parent homes, welfare and housing projects and all the misery that goes with it." Did that happen? Was Johnson responsible? Or was it just the result of abject poverty, Jim Crow, segregation, rampant and unchecked r****m, or other factors?

You make your opinion a factual, foregone conclusion: it is not.

Seth

Kennedy and Johnson were not friends. Johnson was JFK'S running mate because the Dems needed a Southerner with political clout on the ticket.

Despite all the revisionist history attached to him, LBJ was a r****t. When he signed the docs expanding welfare (b****s were the target), a steward on his airplane, where he was surrounded by down home good ol' boys, overheard him say, "This'll get us the n____r v**e for the next 300 years," or something to that effect.

But if you read the rest of my post, I was hoping to get your input on the massive amounts of homeless white males in "progressive" locales like S.F. and L.A.
collecting welfare and SSI whose only "disabilities" are their laziness and loves of smoking weed all day or using meth.

These are like house pets to "liberals" who are certainly liberal with the taxpayer's hard earned money.

Would you consider it un-PC or otherwise disgraceful to call THEM parasites?

rumitoid

Sorry, Seth, it is nothing that I am familiar with about S.F. and L.A. If you could give some verifiable stats, it would be helpful.

Seth

What I've learned comes from spending time in Santa Monica and from what friends in SF tell me is happening up there (I lived there during my senior year in High School and later for a few years as an adult).

As in most "liberal" run cities and states, undomiciled numbers are very high, I think because such cities are more welcoming -- the police, because of directives from the politicians, barely give lip service to drug laws and, since recreational marijuana is legal in California, it is s mecca for young and not so young people, mostly white males, who prefer living on the street and staying stoned to taking any responsibility for themselves.

Meth use and the resulting crime and squalor -- evidently meth heads don't have any compunction when it comes to using sidewalks and doorways as repositories for garbage, used syringes and feces -- detract heavily, from an environmental standpoint, from quality of life for home owners and apartment dwellers, merchants and workers in these municipalities.

I have spoken to some of these miscreants at one time or another, and learned that most of them either collect SSI for "conditions" that are not disabilities or collect welfare ("general relief" in California, or "G.R.") and food stamps, which come in a debit card format.

There are any number of organizations around providing every kind of "service" to these people, most of whom seem to be in their 20s and 30s -- every kind of service except getting them to work. These orgs make money via tax deductible donations as well as receiving money from the state and federal governments for services provided, and this being a Democrat state, I don't doubt that the orgs in question, reaping vast profits off the homeless cash cow, donate heavily to the campaigns of politicians who are in a position to expedite their concerns' profitabilities.

My point bring that, given the scenario I have laid out, adding that there are numerous work opportunities available in the form of labor pools and other venues that welcome homeless men, and that there are virtual legions of these young white homeless males on the streets of Santa Monica and next door Venice, all collecting money off the taxpayer every month and spending most if not all of it on drugs...

I'm interested in knowing whether you would consider it "un-PC" or otherwise disgraceful to refer to such young white males as "parasites."

Simple question, no statistics needed.

Rose42

No, that is a dishonest statement on your part. Its like saying the democrats were r****ts because Obama was.

rumitoid

Okay, that may be a fair point. I want to switch this up a bit and ask a few questions. Is tact and diplomacy just PC in a nice suit? Is tact and diplomacy only for high level negotiations between nations? What is wrong with being tactful and diplomatic with people? Is that somehow dishonest or disingenuous? PC at its root is about civility, respecting diversity of the opinions of other and finding tactful and diplomatic ways to resolve problems, differences, and conflicts. Call it Conflict Resolution. Why on earth would we not want how we communicate to be that why? That is not stifling Free Speech; it is honoring the spirit of it.

Or maybe if you just tell me precisely what you object to about PC and/or how we should communicate.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

My mother has a dog named Gypsy...
She has been told numerous times that this is rude, insensitive and r****t...

A friend of mine in highschool once asked a Holocast survivor (r****m seminar) about his opinion on the situation between Israel and the Palestinians...
When the man told him that it wasn't something he cared to comment on, my friend repeated the question... Claiming that this was a double standard... The man Then accused my friend of r****m and my friend was removed from the seminar... Three of us chose to leave with him... We were all forced to write apology letters to the speaker and essays on r****m...

That is the problem with PC...
It becomes a club to strike out against people with...Forcing people to accept a single 'right' view of various subjects and topics...

rumitoid

Sorry, I do not see the point. Where is the PC? Why did your friend repeat the question when a Holocaust Survivor, who I think had suffered quite enough, declined to answer? Where is the respect? A "r****m seminar"? How so? Not sure of who "Claimed that this was a double standard," your friend or the old man? And if your friend, why claim that?

I think that more background is needed for this old and slow brain to grasp what you mean. It may be staring me right in the eyes yet I can't see it. Sorry.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

We were being taught about the suppression of others.. The speaker was a citizen of Israel... I can't remember what issue was in the news at the time but it was rather controversial...
After being lectured for an hour about the dangers of segregation and demonizing people we were allowed to ask questions... My friend felt that it was disingenuous for the speaker not to comment on the actions of his nation....
The PC was in that my friend was in no way being rude or disrespectful... He simply wished an answer to a question that was certainly on topic... His removal was due to the mistaken view (PC) that some topics are not acceptable... The three of us who walked out (an action that was allowed, it was a voluntary seminar) being forced to write apology letters and essays was a further example of this sort of censorship...
PC attempts to inflict arbitrary rules on society... I agree with civility and with Good manners... I disagree with limiting the topics we may freely discuss..

rumitoid

I must be dense. I still do not see the PC. This is the definition I have of Political Correctness: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Is that not how you perceive PC? The speaker appears to have been something of a jerk, perhaps, yet where was the PC?

It seems you take PC to mean a limitation on free discussion. If so, then you're right.

Rose42

Tact and diplomacy are nothing new. Pc IS new. Its an insult to every person to presume to dictate to them what is and isn’t acceptable speech when they already know.

At its root pc is about control. Nothing more. Trying to control speech dishonors the 1st.



Its based on a lie - the lie that its about civility. We don’t need it. We can communicate civilly with good old fashioned politeness. Or not. Lol

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Your definition is what PC was meant to be....
But PC is now used to shut down free discussion... People crying anti-semitism if one chooses to criticize Israel is an excellent example...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Well said...

I think we are a good example... We seem to disagree on a few rather touchy issues... But I don't think we have ever been uncivil with each other....

Hmmmm.... Maybe I should start playing the PC card with you