General US Politics

[Water Mage]

Imo, a person who consistently "miswords" things and is so frequently "misunderstood" should not be president in the first place.

I was about to post this.

If someone often miswords things, they shouldn't be president at all.

It's like saying that he doesn't know better, but that is an excuse for a child, and a president SHOULD know better.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Water Mage

[tuvarkz]

Eh, I find it a lot more about people being jumpy on anything that sounds remotely not PC.

[solrocknroll]

Eh, I find it a lot more about people being jumpy on anything that sounds remotely not PC.

Good. Everyone should strive to be as politically correct as possible. That's why Donald Trump is not only a bad candidate, but a bad person too.

I jump on even my own family members if they say anything that isn't politically correct, even at private family gatherings.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Ms. Bunch

[Duff Ostrich]

Political correctness is Maoist trash. It supposes that maintaining a desired narrative is more important than the dispassionate truth. Lies should never be rationalized, and as such political correctness should be totally rejected.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[ErrantDShepherd]

Someone not being politically correct is excusable in a friend... or a colleague. Someone who you can excuse for the slip, because under it all they aren't a bad person.

...when your job is literally to choose the best, most politic choice of action as your decisions and mistakes affect the rest of the world... I think... perhaps... one ought to be more "correct."

Being politically correct is about consciously choosing to be respectful and thoughtful towards others as possible... So... if the person in charge tends to display callousness and disrespect, as well as a complete disregard for those they do not personally care for... they SHOULDN'T BE IN CHARGE.

Unless... well, one wants to have everyone pissed off at their nation over things that could have easily been avoided with a bit of... political correctness?

Just my two cents. :0

Edited June 23, 2016 by ErrantShepherd

[solrocknroll]

Someone not being politically correct is excusable in a friend... or a colleague. Someone who you can excuse for the slip, because under it all they aren't a bad person.

...when your job is literally to choose the best, most politic choice of action as your decisions and mistakes affect the rest of the world... I think... perhaps... one ought to be more "correct."

Being politically correct is about consciously choosing to be respectful and thoughtful towards others as possible... So... if the person in charge tends to display callousness and disrespect, as well as a complete disregard for those they do not personally care for... they SHOULDN'T BE IN CHARGE.

Unless... well, one wants to have everyone pissed off at their nation over things that could have easily been avoided with a bit of... political correctness?

Just my two cents. :0

Same. I take it upon myself to always be respectful and I get offended for other people. I would never criticise someone for anything, even an inadequate work. I think everyone should respect the wishes and desires of others. The only time I don' think so is when one group's wishes hurt other people.

[Tryhard]

Political correctness is more than just being polite or such by most definitions, though. It's a way of speech "intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society". If you believe that Mexicans or whatever are detrimental to the country, there is no way to speak that view without directly confronting an entire group of people, and probably getting (rightly) criticized for doing so.

Funnily enough though, most times I hear people complaining about political correctness it's because 'why am I not allowed to espouse my bigoted views without rebuke?' It actually has little bearing on what people would limit what they say, and more about how they usually just want to go on to say their views that are misguided, disingenuous or just plain incorrect. Most of what they say I would have a problem with if they said it in a defined politically incorrect or correct way regardless.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Tryhard

[Duff Ostrich]

I'm not sure you guys understand what political correctness actually is. It's not about being respectful. A free exchange of ideas can always be done with a mutual sense of respect, and with less political correctness that may be even easier to do!

Political correctness is about deliberately avoiding the truth because someone from a particular group might find it offensive. There is no justification for sacrificing honesty in the pursuit of whatever it is PC language policing is supposed to accomplish. It's a poison and an affront to free speech.

[solrocknroll]

I'm not sure you guys understand what political correctness actually is. It's not about being respectful. A free exchange of ideas can always be done with a mutual sense of respect, and with less political correctness that may be even easier to do!

Political correctness is about deliberately avoiding the truth because someone from a particular group might find it offensive. There is no justification for sacrificing honesty in the pursuit of whatever it is PC language policing is supposed to accomplish. It's a poison and an affront to free speech.

Offending people is bad. If it meant not offending people, I would absolutely avoid the truth. I moderate my own friends and family are won't be politically correct.

I may not be Latino or black or Muslim, but I'll always get offended nonetheless. It's not nice to say bad things about groups of people.

[eclipse]

I'm not sure you guys understand what political correctness actually is. It's not about being respectful. A free exchange of ideas can always be done with a mutual sense of respect, and with less political correctness that may be even easier to do!

Political correctness is about deliberately avoiding the truth because someone from a particular group might find it offensive. There is no justification for sacrificing honesty in the pursuit of whatever it is PC language policing is supposed to accomplish. It's a poison and an affront to free speech.

Offending people is bad. If it meant not offending people, I would absolutely avoid the truth. I moderate my own friends and family are won't be politically correct.

I may not be Latino or black or Muslim, but I'll always get offended nonetheless. It's not nice to say bad things about groups of people.

Both of you need to cut this the fuck out.

Duff Ostrich: Making sure others listen means being tactful - one can be honest, while respecting the other person's wishes. No tact = no listen = problems. Or, being brutally honest is more about the brutality than the honesty.

Ms. Bunch: DO NOT FUCKING ASSUME SHIT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE OFFENDED. That's just as bad as the so-called offensive things you're trying to fight. You are NOT the other person, so don't overlay your opinions over their internal monologue.

[-Cynthia-]

Well, for precision, said judge belongs to the "La Raza Lawyers" ('La Raza' being spanish for 'The Race', take it as you will) firm, which has as it's third article:

Purpose and Goals

The purpose and goal of this Association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership.

Latino communities having illegals amongst their groups, it is clear that there is a conflict of interest. Also, regarding racial profiling, the statistics seem to back it up.

Eh, this reasoning seems pretty weak to me. One could use this logic to dismiss any judge who is a member of a political group that is significantly different from the views of the defendant (which happens all the time). With someone as famous as Donald Trump, finding a judge who doesn't know anything about them is an unrealistic proposition.

I'm not seeing 'political affiliation' as a reason for recusal pretty much anywhere.

Edited June 24, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Crysta]

There will always be someone offended by disagreement, somewhere.

But now I hear the term being so often flung around by guys who aren't only politically incorrect but objectively incorrect, too. If you're going to be the former you better be the latter, otherwise you just look like an asshat and no amount of whining is going to change that.

Most of the time I'm not disagreeing with someone just because I'm afraid of being offensive or offending someone - I may just find your edgy unpopular opinion wrong period.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Crysta

[tuvarkz]

The thing is, even the truth, when tactful, is going to offend people (After all, being offended being a feeling, it's something mostly subjective). There's a reason why fat acceptance movement has gained so much tract-there's people that are utterly offended by the bare suggestion that being morbidly obese may be deadly to them; and it allows people or groups to write off legitimate criticism as sexism/racism/etc. Yes, you can make sure to not go out of your way to offend everyone, but I rather much prefer someone that does so than someone that would rather not deal with these subjects at all.

Eh, this reasoning seems pretty weak to me. One could use this logic to dismiss any judge who is a member of a political group that is significantly different from the views of the defendant (which happens all the time). With someone as famous as Donald Trump, finding a judge who doesn't know anything about them is an unrealistic proposition.

I'm not seeing 'political affiliation' as a reason for recusal pretty much anywhere.

The US has a healthy amount of independents, though. I don't think finding a judge that is linked to a politically tied group/is not a member of either major party is impossible.

[blah the Prussian]

Offending people is bad. If it meant not offending people, I would absolutely avoid the truth. I moderate my own friends and family are won't be politically correct.

I may not be Latino or black or Muslim, but I'll always get offended nonetheless. It's not nice to say bad things about groups of people.

Okay, hold the phone. Let's do a thought experiment here.

Imagine that, say, I'm an old Korean woman who's telling you about how Imperial Japan forced her into sexual slavery. Once there, she was forced to endure multiple rapes a day, for years. Then, a Japanese man comes up and says "you're lying, I'm offended."

I'm asking because Japan apologism, as with Young Turk apologism, is a serious problem in the modern day. To be clear, the atrocities of Imperial Japan all unambiguously happened. And yet, even today, there is a vocal amount of Japanese society that seeks to deny these victims not only compensation, but even recognition, all because the truth "offends" them. How do you feel about that?

[Crysta]

I don't see many people suggesting being morbidly obese is okay at all.

[Time the Crestfallen]

For what it's worth, I think that the shit thing about this kind of debate is that it always seems (as far as I can tell) to be centered mostly around the unpleasant minority on both sides.

[Alertcircuit]

Offending people is bad. If it meant not offending people, I would absolutely avoid the truth. I moderate my own friends and family are won't be politically correct.

I may not be Latino or black or Muslim, but I'll always get offended nonetheless. It's not nice to say bad things about groups of people.

Not sure if satire...

Political correctness is dumb. Obviously you should try hard not to offend people but there shouldn't be a flat rulebook of words or phrases or topics that suddenly make your conversation considered invalid. That said, there's still a time and place for everything. Treat everyone with respect.

But the President should strive especially hard not to offend people, and Trump's ostracizing of almost everyone who isn't an able-bodied straight white man is going to be a huge obstacle to him. Part of the President's job is to get people to like him/her. He shouldn't be pissing off so many minorities to the point that other politicians in his party (the ones he's supposed to be working with) are embarrassed to associate with him.

[Sunwoo]

In the wake of the Brexit situation, all I have to say to any Americans voting in this upcoming election is this:

Do your research. Make your vote count, and make sure you know what you are voting for. And whatever you vote for, you better be ready to deal with the consequences of it.

[-Cynthia-]

The US has a healthy amount of independents, though. I don't think finding a judge that is linked to a politically tied group/is not a member of either major party is impossible.

People can be very liberal or conservative and be technically labeled independent. The main point is that there's really no precedent for judges recusing themselves due to political affilitation and legal precedents are what law is all about really.

[eclipse]

The thing is, even the truth, when tactful, is going to offend people (After all, being offended being a feeling, it's something mostly subjective). There's a reason why fat acceptance movement has gained so much tract-there's people that are utterly offended by the bare suggestion that being morbidly obese may be deadly to them; and it allows people or groups to write off legitimate criticism as sexism/racism/etc. Yes, you can make sure to not go out of your way to offend everyone, but I rather much prefer someone that does so than someone that would rather not deal with these subjects at all.

To disregard tact because of the assumption that certain people can't take criticism is wrong. Watch your words first and foremost - you can control what you say, and how you say it. If the other person reacts in an abnormal way, that's their problem. My parents didn't stand for it when I threw a temper tantrum.

Also, if the support for your argument is fat acceptance, that's a really low bar.

In the wake of the Brexit situation, all I have to say to any Americans voting in this upcoming election is this:

Do your research. Make your vote count, and make sure you know what you are voting for. And whatever you vote for, you better be ready to deal with the consequences of it.

Telling people to vote with their heads, and not their hearts, isn't the easiest. I refuse to vote for either Trump or Clinton (my reasons haven't changed much), but I will not leave my ballot blank.

[Duff Ostrich]

Both of you need to cut this the fuck out.

Duff Ostrich: Making sure others listen means being tactful - one can be honest, while respecting the other person's wishes. No tact = no listen = problems. Or, being brutally honest is more about the brutality than the honesty.

I'm not sure what it is you're asking me not to do.

My previous post clearly indicates that "mutual respect", presumably held between two or more parties exhibiting tact, politeness, and so on, is how to best approach a discussion. I've certainly intended to do that here.

But political correctness isn't about respect, and it isn't about tact or politeness either. It is at best about denying facts that are perceived by some as offensive, and at worst is a deliberate attempt at creating a false narrative. The populist, right-leaning rejection of political correctness could be described as the bubbling up of frustrations from people that are sick and tired of being called racist for noticing problems with the media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case (for instance). They're tired of being called Islamophobic for fearing the spread of Sharia. They're tired of being called sexist for seeing through the wage gap myth. They're tired of being called transphobic for agreeing with the overwhelming majority opinion concerning restrooms and locker rooms. The politically correct guilt mongers have no end to the name-calling, and finally this has led to a coalescing of a reactionary political force. Donald Trump may very well win on the strength of this collective anger.

[Crysta]

The hysteria regarding the adoption of Sharia law being an actual possibility and the hysteria regarding the change of some bathroom policies borders on the absurd.

So yeah, you're going to get called out for it. And it seems that's the problem, not the deliberate disregard for "facts" and "truth" (both of which are sounding increasingly like "what I view as facts and truths" more than anything truly objective).

But yeah there's a lot of people who don't like being called mean names implying they are ignorant (even when they are being such) and they may be voting for Trump.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Crysta

[Time the Crestfallen]

The hysteria regarding the adoption of Sharia law being an actual possibility and the hysteria regarding the change of some bathroom policies borders on the absurd.

So yeah, you're going to get called out for it. And it seems that's the problem, not the deliberate disregard for "facts" and "truth" (both of which are sounding increasingly like "what I view as facts and truths" more than anything truly objective).

But yeah there's a lot of people who don't like being called mean names implying they are ignorant (even when they are being such) and they may be voting for Trump.

It's essentially combating a type of extremism they don't like (I believe the term used is 'regressive left') with what they think is a reasonable response, but from a neutral perspective is just another kind of extremism.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Phillius

[blah the Prussian]

I think that Sharia refers to opposing Sharia law in countries where its present. Duff is almost certainly too smart to believe that the west is honestly in danger of adapting Sharia.

[Moblin Major General]

I think that Sharia refers to opposing Sharia law in countries where its present. Duff is almost certainly too smart to believe that the west is honestly in danger of adapting Sharia.

There was a large Muslim community in Michigan that made an honest attempt at implementing Sharia some years ago. They obviously failed, but it seems like religion comes before state for them. I attempt to be politically correct when the facts are not in my favor, but when church and state mix, that's where I draw the line.