|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2016 12:47:50 GMT -5
"Politically Correct" is a term that, if it ever had meaning, has utterly lost whatever that meaning was. It now mostly means, "I want to be an asshole and not face any repercussions."
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 19, 2016 12:59:05 GMT -5
"Politically Correct" is a term that, if it ever had meaning, has utterly lost whatever that meaning was. It now mostly means, "I want to be an asshole and not face any repercussions." True, it is often used to deflect accusations of boorishness. I still find it useful to describe the worldview of individuals who claim that any non-Italian eating a pizza is guilty of cultural appropriation, though. We have an rather PC prime minister right now in Canada. I find it mildly irritating at times, but I'd rather have that than a churl who makes blonde jokes!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 19, 2016 16:43:40 GMT -5
Look at me! I'm the prime minister of Ireland!
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Oct 19, 2016 19:36:00 GMT -5
First, has everyone forgotten Martin O'Malley, the third candidate in the Democratic primaries? I think even Martin O'Malley has forgotten Martin O'Malley. Apparently "political correctness" is a really big issue to some people. Yeah, racists and bigots really, really hate being told they're being racist and bigoted.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Oct 19, 2016 20:47:58 GMT -5
Apparently "political correctness" is a really big issue to some people. Yeah, racists and bigots really, really hate being told they're being racist and bigoted. The impression I got from that article is that they hate it in part because they see it as an attempt to dismiss their concerns, change the subject, and stigmatize them to get them to shut up. I can understand why someone wouldn't like that.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 19, 2016 23:07:58 GMT -5
Yeah, racists and bigots really, really hate being told they're being racist and bigoted. The impression I got from that article is that they hate it in part because they see it as an attempt to dismiss their concerns, change the subject, and stigmatize them to get them to shut up. I can understand why someone wouldn't like that. That article started out really whiny. That part about "I'll call them Chinese women. PC police be damned!" and he's all indignant because - damn - he should be able to say "Chinese women" without those mean PC police jumping all over him! Um. Did somebody complain about that? Is there some kind of PC overreach where people are being attacked for phrases like that? This is a classic straw man argument. He's using the PC phrase for something that wouldn't offend anybody and then screeching about the PC police. And I'm not surprised because it's the National Review. One thing you'll notice is how whiny the complaints are. One woman said she was called Islamophobic because she used the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism." I uh have a feeling there was more to it. This "freedom of speech" they claim to hold so dear - the funny thing about it is that it is still in effect when they are done talking. Even if their simplistic version of events is true (which I doubt) they don't seem to realize this freedom of speech also applies to people who disagree with them. Their critics have the right to call out racism and misogyny and Islamophobia. You can argue about whether it really is fair or whether it's over-the-top. But you can't argue that it should be stopped if you really care about freedom of speech other than your own. I can't believe I actually read a National Review article. I swore them off a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 20, 2016 0:01:47 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that I didn't read the whole article. It was just too annoying. I have a number of friends and relatives who are similarly ridiculous and whiny and inconsistent on "political correctness," so there was nothing in the first part of the article that I haven't heard before.
Think about it. They are upset because they feel that being called "racist" or "misogynist" or "homophobic" (because of political correctness) and it supposedly prevents them from comfortably saying what they think and feel. They don't like their perception that they are being told what is acceptable for them to think and say. And their solution is: Telling people that they disagree with what is acceptable for them to think and say.
It's exactly the kind of argument that I would expect from the National Review.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Oct 20, 2016 0:22:05 GMT -5
How did I miss this earlier this summer ? Apologies to M.O.D.O.K.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 20, 2016 1:30:40 GMT -5
All this political correctness! A political candidate for a major party can't say that he won't promote an attack on the new government when he is defeated for the presidency without having everybody criticizig him and calling him seditious! All this political correctness is hurting America! (Somehow. I'm sure it is. If you ask me to explain how that works, I'll just start whining about "political correctness" again.)
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 20, 2016 6:09:23 GMT -5
All this political correctness! A political candidate for a major party can't say that he won't promote an attack on the new government when he is defeated for the presidency without having everybody criticizig him and calling him seditious! All this political correctness is hurting America! (Somehow. I'm sure it is. If you ask me to explain how that works, I'll just start whining about "political correctness" again.) Clinton had the right term: that was horrifying. Being a butthurt sore loser is one thing, but rejecting American democracy like Trump did is another entirely. I expect it from people arguing around the dinner table but definitely not from a presidential candidate on national television.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 20, 2016 7:59:56 GMT -5
Obama didn't have much to lose by running against her. If he had done well, it would have improved his profile for 4 or 8 years later, when he would have had a more "presidential age" even. We shouldn't confuse the perception of how formidable a candidate is with how well they end up doing. And at the end of the day, Sanders lost by a wider margin than previous primary losers, whether you count supers or not. I don't think that tells the whole story. Sanders completely failed to capture any minority vote, which means he got KILLED down south.. if he had won, all those folks would have lined up behind him. The Superdelagate thing is not important just for their votes, but for the psychology. Clinton was the front runner and presumptive nominee from the beginning, and a (IMO) disturbing number of voter like to support the winner if it's a close decision. Even with those obstacles, Sanders had a chance (Not a good one, but a mathematically viable one) to end up winning even going into the California Primary... I can't remember the last time that happened, and that's AFTER he basically conceded. There was also Jim Webb in addtion to O'Malley, but I don't think either was a serious candidate. Webb just wanted some stage time to audition for Sec. of Defense, and O'Malley was getting his name in the mix for 2016.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 20, 2016 8:40:27 GMT -5
Heh.. that's right! He did make it to the first debate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 9:21:45 GMT -5
First, has everyone forgotten Martin O'Malley, the third candidate in the Democratic primaries? I certainly did, at least until about a week ago, when I found myself looking up biographical info on his mother for work-related reasons. Seems like a pretty solid guy, at least on paper.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 10:14:34 GMT -5
I think it was a best-seller...it's on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 20, 2016 11:36:30 GMT -5
Hah! That's nothing! In Captain America #175 we learned that Richard Nixon was the leader of the Secret Empire!
|
|