US Presidential Candidates

dscott8 wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:It's not about courtesy, it's about having the government throw people in jail for saying Bad Words. I thought that went out with McCarthy.

This is a free country. Our freedom must not be held hostage by every whiner that claims to be 'Offended' by it. Anybody can choose to Take Offense at anything.

Some people want to offend you. When you get all puffed up with offense and indignation, you give them power over you.

People have the right to be assholes. You have the right to call them assholes. Forcing them to be silent because they might Offend Your Delicate Sensibilities is right out of Orwell's 1984.
-------------------
Mrs. Tweedy! The chickens are revolting!!

So if you walk up to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and call him an uppity nigger who should forget astrophysics and get back to picking cotton, his only option is call you an asshole? Am I to assume you would just accept that and not escalate? Do you think every such exchange will consist of a peaceful exchange of Fuck Yous and folks will just accept that and move on?

There is a legal principle that "fighting words" are an incitement to breach of the peace. (US Supreme Court, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942.) I will grant that some people have overdone the agenda-based editing of language, but I disagree that there is a legal right to be an asshole. Not when being an asshole provokes trouble.

PeterZ wrote:Again that falls under inciting harm.

For the purposes of frank discussion, PC simply attempts to shut people up. I recall an online discussion regarding same sex marriage. One poster asserted that unless I agreed that SSM as she wished it was totally acceptable, I was a bigot. No discussion was acceptable. I only had the option to agree or shut the f**k up.

That mindset defines all sorts of words and ideas as inherently unacceptable for the most idiotic reasons. When a man can get fired for properly using the word niggardly in a sentence, that's just rediculous.

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (Howard is white), identified by Howard as Marshall Brown, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25, Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it. However, after public pressure, an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. "I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind; that's naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can't afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does."

Public response[edit]
The Howard incident led to a national debate in the U.S., in the context of racial sensitivity and political correctness, on whether use of niggardly should be avoided. As James Poniewozik wrote in Salon, the controversy was "an issue that opinion-makers right, left and center could universally agree on." He wrote that "the defenders of the dictionary" were "legion, and still queued up six abreast." Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back—and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them."

Bond also said, "Seems to me the mayor has been niggardly in his judgment on the issue" and that as a nation the US has a "hair-trigger sensibility" on race that can be tripped by both real and false grievances.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Again that falls under inciting harm.

For the purposes of frank discussion, PC simply attempts to shut people up. I recall an online discussion regarding same sex marriage. One poster asserted that unless I agreed that SSM as she wished it was totally acceptable, I was a bigot. No discussion was acceptable. I only had the option to agree or shut the f**k up.

That mindset defines all sorts of words and ideas as inherently unacceptable for the most idiotic reasons. When a man can get fired for properly using the word niggardly in a sentence, that's just rediculous.

I did agree that the language police can go to extremes, and I have often lamented the adversarial culture that seems to be the norm these days. To show the flip side, I have advocated marriage equality and been told to "shut the f**k up" because someone's "good book" says I'm wrong and if I questioned it, I'd burn in hell. Is that not also a form of "politically correct" suppression?

I dislike the idea of "political correctness" because it draws no line between shutting down disagreement and simple mutual respect.

BTW, the "niggardly" example you cited should be explained in full:

From Wikipedia:

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (Howard is white), identified by Howard as Marshall Brown, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25, Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it. However, after public pressure, an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. "I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind; that's naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can't afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does."

Public response[edit]
The Howard incident led to a national debate in the U.S., in the context of racial sensitivity and political correctness, on whether use of niggardly should be avoided. As James Poniewozik wrote in Salon, the controversy was "an issue that opinion-makers right, left and center could universally agree on." He wrote that "the defenders of the dictionary" were "legion, and still queued up six abreast." Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back—and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them."

Bond also said, "Seems to me the mayor has been niggardly in his judgment on the issue" and that as a nation the US has a "hair-trigger sensibility" on race that can be tripped by both real and false grievances.

So, in that case, the Chairman of the NAACP agreed with you.

PeterZ wrote:As we have seen, there is definitely a lack of tolerance in political discourse in the US and I dare say the world nowadays. Had a Brit immigrant flat out state the people who voted for Brexit were racist and voted their racism on the issue.

Trumps's crass and boorish behavior and complete disregard for many social conventions have rightly offended many people. Yet, do those offenses necessarily make him a racist, sexist and misanthropic bigot? I don't believe it does. That he is willing to offend so freely does mean that he will not cow-tow to the more egregious excesses of the PC movement.

Just as bill Clinton's extra curricular activities redefined sexual behavior in our youth, perhaps Trump's boorishness will also separate acceptable propriety from unreasonable political censorship. Well, that's a hope anyway.

dscott8 wrote:I don't believe Trump is a racist, but I can't discredit the sexist charge. Men who grew up before feminism matured, myself included, were culturally indoctrinated in the assumption of male superiority. I see it in myself, and work to keep it in check. I don't think Trump works too hard at it.

A big problem I see is that Trump, like a lot of politicians, told people what they want to hear, and those people filtered what they heard through their own confirmation bias. As I've said before, there are a lot of bigoted people who think Trump's election has given them legitimacy. There are already campaigns on the net for Trump to pardon Dylann Roof for the Charleston massacre. Trump's rejection of the blurred concept of "political correctness" has been read by extremists as the green light for xenophobes and racists. It may not be what he meant, but those people will no doubt filter out his recent calls for unity as the usual political kissy-face talk.

Yet, do those offenses necessarily make him a racist, sexist and misanthropic bigot?

cow-tow

Just as bill Clinton's extra curricular activities redefined sexual behavior in our youth

Did having President Obama in office give those people who totally embrace all the excesses of the PC culture a green light for their censorship? I believe it did.

Swinging the pendulum the other way has to start somewhere, so why not here and why not now?

As for the true bigots and racists on the right or left, its our job to beat them back with political argument, not shut them up because they are idiots.

Is trump sexist? I really don't know. Our definitions for sexism may well be different enough that we see the same behaviors and come to different conclusions.

dscott8 wrote:I don't believe Trump is a racist, but I can't discredit the sexist charge.

PeterZ wrote:

dscott8 wrote:I don't believe Trump is a racist, but I can't discredit the sexist charge. Men who grew up before feminism matured, myself included, were culturally indoctrinated in the assumption of male superiority. I see it in myself, and work to keep it in check. I don't think Trump works too hard at it.

A big problem I see is that Trump, like a lot of politicians, told people what they want to hear, and those people filtered what they heard through their own confirmation bias. As I've said before, there are a lot of bigoted people who think Trump's election has given them legitimacy. There are already campaigns on the net for Trump to pardon Dylann Roof for the Charleston massacre. Trump's rejection of the blurred concept of "political correctness" has been read by extremists as the green light for xenophobes and racists. It may not be what he meant, but those people will no doubt filter out his recent calls for unity as the usual political kissy-face talk.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/posts/1330853343591472:0
Here is food for thought. Mr. Rowe has solid insights as usual.

Did having President Obama in office give those people who totally embrace all the excesses of the PC culture a green light for their censorship? I believe it did. Swinging the pendulum the other way has to start somewhere, so why not here and why not now?

As for the true bigots and racists on the right or left, its our job to beat them back with political argument, not shut them up because they are idiots. Let them speak their minds and then we illuminate their idiocy for all to see. Often, there is a valid point these idiots take and expand to ridiculous extremes. Accept the valid points and disregard the rest.

Is trump sexist? I really don't know. Our definitions for sexism may well be different enough that we see the same behaviors and come to different conclusions. In the end his beliefs are his, not those that voted for him. We truly have our own myriad reasons that made him preferable to Clinton that have nothing to do with the dominant media narrative. Accept that, or you will approach future discussions at a grave disadvantage driven by false assumptions.

gcomeau wrote:

dscott8 wrote:I don't believe Trump is a racist, but I can't discredit the sexist charge.

There may be.... some... room for debate in whether Trump is himself a racist.

There is no room for debate whatsoever that he had no reservations taking deliberate advantage of racism for his personal benefit this entire campaign.


And frankly, I find little morally to pick between those two things.

dscott8 wrote:
I could not read the linked article because I have no Facebook login. I found it elsewhere, and I will agree with him that the election is the result of people wanting change. I'm just not sure that the change they will get is the one they want, or expect. For some, I think it's another case of expecting a simple answer to complex problems.

I do not think that Trump's major support came from racists. I do think that the small but vocal racist community latched onto his campaign assuming that their shared brashness and his ties to the birther issue made him one of them.

I deplore the excesses in any direction, and would love to see a new Centrist political party, but I fear that will not happen because it provides no opportunity for the self-righteous anger that pervades both sides of the political discussion. "Both sides" is also a problem because we reduce every issue to binary choices, group those choices into "liberal" or "conservative" and demand that people declare for one or the other. Those of us who see some good and some bad on either side, or who suggest that there might be a third option, get shouted down by both sides. This binary mindset makes politics a "closed shop", preventing third parties from getting any traction.

I believe the more radical Trump supporters are in for four years of disappointments, because they projected their expectations onto him. I also believe that the more radical opposition will make fools of themselves crying "wolf" until they are hoarse.

It's tempting to declare "a plague on both your houses" and abandon the contest, but that's dereliction of duty.