Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep, during the Obama presidency, you MUST agree with everything Obama and agree with his policies simply because of the color of his skin color otherwise your a racist. That's the race card to keep you silent so people don't hear other points of view. If Hillary would have won, if you dare disagree with Hillary's policies they would pulled out the sexist card.
These are forms of the 'unassailability' fallacy. A teenager survives a mass shooting at Parkland and gains celebrity status leading an emotional witch hunt based on a shameful ignorance of basic civics. Had he been anyone else he would have been rightfully dismissed but because of his part in a tragedy he became the unassailable victim and nobody dared call him out for being a low information, opportunistic, angry young boy with no useful legal insights at all. The left tried to give Obama the cloak of unassailability by virtue of his race and you had to be willing to get called a racist if you wanted to criticize him. It's totally clear that Hillary would have tried to do the same thing, i.e. wrap herself in gender victimhood as a defense against whatever came her way. She didn't even win the race and she's doing it ... playing the gender discrimination card as one of her myriad excuses for failing. This fallacy should be pointed out and mocked whenever someone tries to play it. Nobody is unassailable. Nobody is above question and criticism.
These are forms of the 'unassailability' fallacy. A teenager survives a mass shooting at Parkland and gains celebrity status leading an emotional witch hunt based on a shameful ignorance of basic civics. Had he been anyone else he would have been rightfully dismissed but because of his part in a tragedy he became the unassailable victim and nobody dared call him out for being a low information, opportunistic, angry young boy with no useful legal insights at all. The left tried to give Obama the cloak of unassailability by virtue of his race and you had to be willing to get called a racist if you wanted to criticize him. It's totally clear that Hillary would have tried to do the same thing, i.e. wrap herself in gender victimhood as a defense against whatever came her way. She didn't even win the race and she's doing it ... playing the gender discrimination card as one of her myriad excuses for failing. This fallacy should be pointed out and mocked whenever someone tries to play it. Nobody is unassailable. Nobody is above question and criticism.
Then there is Michele Obama who didn't vote for Hillary when Hillary ran against her husband but is now saying...
"In light of this last election, I'm concerned about us, as women, and what we think about ourselves and about each other," What is going on in our heads where we let that happen.
-- Michele Obama
Hundreds of posts, all to determine that the answer is that some people have decided that it's more effort than they feel like putting in to treat other people with common courtesy and respect.
Because the left is nuts. They are offended if President Trump calls gang members animals because they murder,rape,and chop up Americans including children . This is the awful political correctness the left preaches and it is a lot of crap! The left preaches good is bad and bad is good. A sign of the last days. God is separating those who fall for false doctrine.
The funny thing about the left is that the left was making funny of the president's wife accent. Both folks on the left and right saw it as racist and xenophobic and called out the comedian Jimmy kemmel on it.
They skin people alive. No, calling them a violent gang does not cover it. They have voluntarily walked away from any sort of humanity that they may have once had. They are animals.
Is this your idea of a respectable discussion: castigating people you don’t agree with as unintelligent or unworthy of common courtesy (that’s the implication)? That alone justifies my refusing to carrying on the discussion with you, no matter how correct you are. And so I’m going use that justification.
I “hate” to tell you this, Bronx, but common courtesy, The Golden Rule, etc. isn’t just for the “smart”, “sensible”, or “well-informed” people (actual or perceived). There’s a good reason you should be embarrassed at yourself for this, believe it or not (see below).
At the source, it’s that
(a) you yourself wouldn’t want to be treated that way by people you disagree with, so don’t treat others that way
(b) most people react in very similar ways toward very similar behaviors directed at them. They even can feel how others feel at a particular moment – including devaluing of personhood, which blatant questioning of intelligence or dignity is.
(c) any irritation or annoyance you feel about errors (real or assumed) is trivial compared to being disrespected, especially deliberately or with conscious, willful indifference.
Note: I make an exception for Trump, for he clearly and consistently sets out to demean others on the pettiest of grounds. So he deserves whatever proportionate insulting he gets, even if only on retaliatory grounds. Were any other Republican in the WH, I'd not have the status message I do have. In the nanometer-small even that Trump does apologize to all others AND backs up that apology with actual, concrete deeds, THEN I'll get rid of that status message. Until then, I'll use it whenever I feel like it.
More hard-nosed tactical reasons:
d) Insults (true or not) add no useful information what polite, respectful speech can already accomplish.
e) It tends to close others minds – namely by suggesting that they deserve to be snubbed and generally dehumanized – not because they themselves consciously and deliberately set out to hurt, harm, or demean the dignity of others but simply because they made a perceived error.
So if there are proper grounds for disparaging a person who did nothing to hurt, harm, or demean others outside the scope of defense of self or others (and certainly did not set out to do so), then I’d like to hear them.
Also, it’s not clear how disparaging an opponent is supposed to convince anybody you’re correct that doesn’t already agree with you. Nor is it clear to me how a person being mistaken, even astonishingly mistaken, justifies devaluing their personhood (as if low intelligence renders them worthy of low personal regard).
So, your idea of the Golden Rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you unless you really, really disagree with them? That's not really how it works, you know.
One of the main reasons Trump is so popular is that he gives a big middle finger to political correctness. He intentionally spites demographics who aren't his base, be it racial minorities, LGBT, non-Christians, educated people, urban elites, etc. People love that and that is why no matter what Trump does, he continues to remain popular and his support shows no signs of eroding. It comes down to tribalism and Trump is really sticking it to the people that red state America have long considered "deplorable" and they love it. So the question is, why does political correctness bother people so bad? What is so bad about being empathetic to people who may be different from the norm?
That's not political correctness, and you know it.
Apparently, it's not even PC to correctly define it.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
One of the main reasons Trump is so popular is that he gives a big middle finger to political correctness. He intentionally spites demographics who aren't his base, be it racial minorities, LGBT, non-Christians, educated people, urban elites, etc. People love that and that is why no matter what Trump does, he continues to remain popular and his support shows no signs of eroding. It comes down to tribalism and Trump is really sticking it to the people that red state America have long considered "deplorable" and they love it. So the question is, why does political correctness bother people so bad? What is so bad about being empathetic to people who may be different from the norm?
Political Correctness is mainly imposed on people through schools, colleges, universities and in certain employment.
Those who are lucky enough to work for themselves or to work in areas such as construction, farming and other such sectors can at least escape a lot of the PC Nonsense, indeed political correctness seems most staunch in large liberal cities.
So what language is not available to you and your party to use to express your views?
Retard? F*****? N*****? W****? Q****? What?
Good, evil. Lazy, stupid.
Using those words to describe people is frowned upon, except when used contrary to their real meaning.
Criminals are misunderstood, have different values, are victims. They're not evil. Therefore they need counseling, not punishment and confinement.
Loafers (another no-no word) too are victims. Of the system, or of (fill in as required)ism. Good is more likely to be associated with people shot by police while evil is more likely to be associated with the policeman even long after the facts have shown otherwise.
Good is out. If there were a good, what is not good would be something not to be discussed. And it might apply to some but not others. Can't have that.
Many ideas can't be discussed in public, especially in places where ideas were traditionally supposed to be discussed. Calling MS-13 gang members animals is likely to redound upon the speaker more than the gang members' action redound on them. Murderers become the victims of hate-speech while their victims become statistics, fulfilling Stalin's maxim.
There are no races, but there is racism. There are no sexes, but there is sexism. Both instances of language being contorted to suppress discussion of the former while commanding it for the latter. The former aren't real. They're "constructs". The latter are the great undefined but all encompassing realities, just as witches were 500 years ago: applicable to anyone and no one, to any act and no act. Accusation is enough. Defense is impossible and impermissible.
PC is the structure provided to enable the communication of these unrealities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
