This is not a bad summary of left versus right

[post]

-snip- And, yes, I realize that's just hearsay since I can't produce proof of anybody saying that, but I have heard it. And I put "affirmative action" in quotes because many Democrats still think we should push hard to see that certain races are represented in all things, even if it means unofficial quotas.

Emily L, I appreciate the civil tone of your reply and please consider my apology for my tone.

I remember my frustration in reaction to this, coming from an MD, I tried to prevent it from influencing my opinion of all G.O.P.
in congress at that time, so I understand what you are saying about implications to overall policy.

Phil Gingrey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"..Ebola virus concerns​

In July 2014, as concern over the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa was in the USA media, Gingrey wrote a letter to the USA CDC, stating "Reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis are particularly concerning." .."

There are more whites living in or near poverty than any other race, and there are more whites in total, about 59 percent of all Americans.
Clarence Thomas was admitted to Yale Law School. Only 200 are admitted annually.

WV is 93 percent white with a shrinking birth rate, combined with more moving out than moving in, losing a congressional seat per the Census,

Wealth in America: Where are the richest and poorest states based on household income?

All 50 states were ranked according to the newly-released median household income figures from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

www.usatoday.com

...

50. West Virginia​

..• Poverty rate: 19.1 percent (4th highest)
"West Virginia has the lowest..income of any state. An estimated 20.2 percent of West Virginia adults hold at least a bachelor's degree — the lowest .. Nationwide, some 32.0 percent ..are college graduates. ."

Justice Thomas would not be on the Supreme Court to vote against what got him nominated to that court by Yale alumni, George HW Bush.
He wants to pull up "the ladder" that was extended to him. Justice Thomas is one of the current 8 justices of only two law schools,
Harvard and Yale. Only one justice from Howard University has even been nominated to that court, Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Justice Thomas is conflicted and resentful to the degree he is incoherent. The achievements of black high school athletes in school sports
were not reported in the MSM in segregated areas or recorded in official record books until the late 1960s, yet...

Justice Secures His Place as a Critic of Integration (Published 2007)

Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent opinion on integration has provided fresh material for the rich debate about him among black scholars.

www.nytimes.com

July 9, 2007
"...ustice Thomas last month argued that black children had achieved great success in what he called “racially isolated” schools before the landmark ruling, Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
In the context of higher education, Justice Thomas said earlier that affirmative action programs cruelly deceived black students admitted to elite law schools under special programs who then found that they could not compete.

“These overmatched students take the bait,” he wrote in 2003, “only to find they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition.”
Justice Thomas was himself admitted to Yale Law School under a set-aside program for minority applicants, ..
...
After examining Justice Thomas’s experiences at a mostly white seminary near Savannah, Ga., and at Yale Law School, Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher, the authors of the biography, “Supreme Discomfort,” write that he “has lived most of his life as the only black or one of a tiny minority of blacks in overwhelmingly white settings.”..“But almost every step of the way, he has been nagged by doubts and has burned with anger at slights, real and imagined.”

Mr. Truly did all of the hiring at the TSBD in 1963. He came from a family that managed a newspaper. He was aware he was speaking to
the country about an historical event.... Affirmative Action must continue, the education level in the poorer states must be raised through
options such as tuition assistance and tuition loan relief. Betsy DeVos was the worst Secretary of Education in the history of that agency.

Rewriting History - Bugliosi Parses the Testimony - Mary ...​

https://www.maryferrell.org › pages › Essay_-_Rewritin...
(WR41) "The building superintendent, Roy Truly, told writer William Manchester (Manchester, pp. 132-133),. "Except for my niggers the boys are conservative, ..."

 

[Emily L]

Of COURSE they do. It's not the reason they want to, but they understand that for them to take everything, others lose it, and that's what they want. It's the core, the basis, of their power.

Craig, I agree that there are people like you are describing, and some of them are in politics. I once asked a very successful businessman whom I admired, "What is your philosophy of life?" Without hesitation, and in complete seriousness, he answered, "Whoever makes the most money, wins.." It wasn't, "To help others," "To do the right thing," or, "To give back to society the wonderful things it has given me." It was, "Whoever makes the most money, wins." My respect for this guy dropped like a lump of lead.

I know there are a lot of people like him. But I also know there are people who aren't like him, people who go out of their way to use their wealth--and power--to help those who really need it. But some of those people do wonderful things without calling the public's attention to it. They work in the background, donating to good causes and, if they are in politics, pushing legislation that will make life easier for those who are less fortunate.

It's not always easy for us to tell one type of person from the other. So, I guess I tend to assume that such a person's motives are good--unless they do or say something that indicates otherwise.

 

[Emily L]

Emily, there is so much wrong in your understanding of these things, and I think you mean well.

You've already discussed 'open borders' and how it is not in any real sense a Democratic policy, so let's skip it. There's nothing dated about "affirmative action". We have remaining inequities from historical racial discrimination, and "affirmative action" is for increasing equality where things are unequal for those reasons. That's a good thing. There are no 'unreasonable limits on free speech' I know of. I'll grant you that how to handle transgender people in athletic contests is a legitimate question, but on which IN NO WAY DESERVES TO BE ON A TOP ONE THOUSAND LIST OF PRIORITIES IN CHOOSING GOVERNMENT. Religion SHOULD be in private - in churches, in homes - not in public schools every child is required to be at having religion forced on them. It's called "freedom".

Your last one is 're-writing history by removing things'. That one is especially bad. A century after the civil war, as the civil rights movement grew to challenge segregation, racists put up statues of confederate leaders to express support for confederate values - racism and subjugating black people, to try to intimidate them - and removing them does nothing but renounce that racism, it DOES NOT re-write history.

No offense but you are putting up nonsense excuses to oppose Democrats and ignoring the real issues of the allocation of trillions of dollars, corruption, democracy and similar actually important things the parties differ on. It would be like picking a side in the Ukraine war based on the haircuts of Zelensky and Putin.

Craig, I see your points on those things, but here's the way I see it (I imagine that you've heard all these arguments before) . . .

Affirmative action, while probably necessary in the 1960's and '70's, now favors one race over the other. A person who might be more qualified for a job can be rejected in favor or a less qualified person of another race--purely due to his race. If the employer can show how one employee is more qualified than another, then race shouldn't be a factor.

Speech is limited when you can't call some one who jumped the Mexican-U.S. border an "illegal alien"--you have to say "unregistered immigrant." You can't, even playfully, use the "n"-word unless you are an African American. (For a while, you couldn't call a gay person the "q"-word, but when gays began to openly use it, it suddenly became okay.)

Craig, you said that removing Confederate statues isn't re-writing history. But what about removing "Huckleberry Finn" from libraries? Or editing "black-face" performances out of old movies? Or locking up forever the radio and TV versions of "Amos and Andy"? If you take those things out of the public eye, then young people won't understand the significance of those bad things and the lessons we've learned from them. Craig, it's like removing all images of the Holocaust, or pictures of racist lynchings. Those images are the best arguments against ever going "there" again.

Craig, I HATE racism. I HATE discrimination against gays. I HATE sexism. I HATE old "Benny Hill" reruns. (Oops! How did that get in there? )

I DO agree that maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Maybe I'm wrong about all that stuff. But that's what I was talking about in my earlier postings. Thanks for letting me clarify that.

 

[Hypothetical]

Compared to the problems I presented in my immediately two prior posts, even if both of your descriptions of
objections were actual concerns close to actual "kitchen table issues," ("Open Borders" are a RWE talking point, anti affirmative action is white backlash...) why would anyone ever vote for a G.O.P. candidate for any elected position?

unfortunately all you just said is wrong, as evidenced by the left's total hypocrisy on each of those subjects and their underhanded way to limit each of them to the maximum extent possible , along with many other issues.

I will give you this though, the lefts apologists for their agenda are top notch.. they can state that it isn;t a certain way (open borders) or they aren;t going to do that (essentially destroy the 2nd amendment ) out of their mouths while burning the constitution behind their backs right in front of you.

 

[Emily L]

Emily L, I appreciate the civil tone of your reply and please consider my apology for my tone.

I remember my frustration in reaction to this, coming from an MD, I tried to prevent it from influencing my opinion of all G.O.P.
in congress at that time, so I understand what you are saying about implications to overall policy.

Phil Gingrey - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"..Ebola virus concerns​

In July 2014, as concern over the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa was in the USA media, Gingrey wrote a letter to the USA CDC, stating "Reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis are particularly concerning." .."

There are more whites living in or near poverty than any other race, and there are more whites in total, about 59 percent of all Americans.
Clarence Thomas was admitted to Yale Law School. Only 200 are admitted annually.

WV is 93 percent white with a shrinking birth rate, combined with more moving out than moving in, losing a congressional seat per the Census,

Wealth in America: Where are the richest and poorest states based on household income?

All 50 states were ranked according to the newly-released median household income figures from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

www.usatoday.com

...

50. West Virginia​

..• Poverty rate: 19.1 percent (4th highest)
"West Virginia has the lowest..income of any state. An estimated 20.2 percent of West Virginia adults hold at least a bachelor's degree — the lowest .. Nationwide, some 32.0 percent ..are college graduates. ."

Justice Thomas would not be on the Supreme Court to vote against what got him nominated to that court by Yale alumni, George HW Bush.
He wants to pull up "the ladder" that was extended to him. Justice Thomas is one of the current 8 justices of only two law schools,
Harvard and Yale. Only one justice from Howard University has even been nominated to that court, Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Justice Thomas is conflicted and resentful to the degree he is incoherent. The achievements of black high school athletes in school sports
were not reported in the MSM in segregated areas or recorded in official record books until the late 1960s, yet...

Justice Secures His Place as a Critic of Integration (Published 2007)

Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent opinion on integration has provided fresh material for the rich debate about him among black scholars.

www.nytimes.com

July 9, 2007
"...ustice Thomas last month argued that black children had achieved great success in what he called “racially isolated” schools before the landmark ruling, Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
In the context of higher education, Justice Thomas said earlier that affirmative action programs cruelly deceived black students admitted to elite law schools under special programs who then found that they could not compete.

“These overmatched students take the bait,” he wrote in 2003, “only to find they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition.”
Justice Thomas was himself admitted to Yale Law School under a set-aside program for minority applicants, ..
...
After examining Justice Thomas’s experiences at a mostly white seminary near Savannah, Ga., and at Yale Law School, Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher, the authors of the biography, “Supreme Discomfort,” write that he “has lived most of his life as the only black or one of a tiny minority of blacks in overwhelmingly white settings.”..“But almost every step of the way, he has been nagged by doubts and has burned with anger at slights, real and imagined.”

Mr. Truly did all of the hiring at the TSBD in 1963. He came from a family that managed a newspaper. He was aware he was speaking to
the country about an historical event.... Affirmative Action must continue, the education level in the poorer states must be raised through
options such as tuition assistance and tuition loan relief. Betsy DeVos was the worst Secretary of Education in the history of that agency.

Rewriting History - Bugliosi Parses the Testimony - Mary ...​

https://www.maryferrell.org › pages › Essay_-_Rewritin...
(WR41) "The building superintendent, Roy Truly, told writer William Manchester (Manchester, pp. 132-133),. "Except for my niggers the boys are conservative, ..."

Wow, Post, that was a real eye-opener! It's kind of disturbing, in fact--especially that stuff about Justice Thomas. Thanks for posting that for me.

 

[Mithrae]

Affirmative action, while probably necessary in the 1960's and '70's, now favors one race over the other. A person who might be more qualified for a job can be rejected in favor or a less qualified person of another race--purely due to his race.

Hi Emily, I hope you don't mind if I jump in to offer an outside (Aussie) perspective here, because I happened to write up a post related to this subject a couple of weeks ago. The fact is that equality of opportunity between black and white Americans does not exist, due to the legacy of
- abject poverty following mass enslavement,
- widespread disenfranchisement and ongoing forced labour into the 20th century,
- housing discrimination up to the federal level through to the 1960s maintaining an incredible disadvantage in wealth,
- historically formal redlining and ongoing informal practices with apparently similar effects,
- as a consequence of these housing policies, wildly disproportionate exposure to the potent neuro-toxin lead prior to the ban (opposed by the right wing of course) on lead-based paints and fuels,
- education segregated first by skin colour and even down to the present by income levels,
- active creation of powerful black market incentives for pimping and drug dealing and their associated gang activities through the criminalization of individuals' freedom of choice,
- "tough on crime" political posturing which has the 'land of the free' locking up more of its citizens than any other developed country rather than addressing the social and political causes of poverty and crime, shutting ever more patients away rather than trying to cure the disease,
- disproportionate policing of poor and especially non-white neighbourhoods, disproportionate police contacts, disproportionate searches, arrest rates, convictions and harsher sentencing even for identical crimes,
- for many decades news and media portrayals reflecting or even exaggerating these artificially-skewed arrest and prison statistics, further reinforcing negative stereotypes among both black and especially white viewers,
- proven biases in recruitment and promotions processes continuing down to the present further exacerbating the poor income, employment and wealth statistics created by historical policies and ongoing educational disparities,
- disproportionate numbers of fatherless homes as a consequence of all these financial, educational, legal, judicial and social disparities - often alongside powerful political opposition to comprehensive sexual education and access to contraceptives - helping to continue the vicious cycle into another generation.

So it's incorrect both to say that Affirmative Action favours one race over the other (quite the opposite, it's intended to mitigate the structural disadvantages against that 'race') and to say that a 'less qualified' individual is favoured purely due to his race (it's due firstly to the probability, on average, that the most qualified black applicants likely would have been as or better 'qualified' in a fairer system, and secondly to the fact that ideal qualification for most roles cannot be assessed based on a few simple quantifiable metrics, meaning that those applicants probably bring something else to the table in terms of experience and motivation which would be missed by simple or biased recruitment and selection processes). Whoowee, long sentence! But with that said, I admit that I'm a bit ambivalent about AA type programs myself, partly because they can be so easily misconstrued as "racism in favour of..." rather than mitigating disadvantages and broadening selection/qualification criteria, and mostly because without addressing the root problems they're just a never-ending bandaid at best and potentially even a distraction from real solutions: Solutions like ensuring equality of funding and educational opportunity in schools at the state level at least, rather than a district level; better recruitment, training, operational and disciplinary procedures for police and overhaul of the justice system in general; and narrowing the longstanding vast wealth gap through payment of long-overdue reparations for slavery by the US government to the estates/heirs of former slaves.

 

[Craig234]

Affirmative action, while probably necessary in the 1960's and '70's, now favors one race over the other. A person who might be more qualified for a job can be rejected in favor or a less qualified person of another race--purely due to his race. If the employer can show how one employee is more qualified than another, then race shouldn't be a factor.

By definition, affirmative action never 'favors one race over another' in the big picture; it is only about reducing one race being favored over another. Since it's only used when one race is favored over another, obviously it helps the the race that's been discriminated against. If there isn't discrimination and inequity, there's no need for affirmative action.

Speech is limited when you can't call some one who jumped the Mexican-U.S. border an "illegal alien"--you have to say "unregistered immigrant." You can't, even playfully, use the "n"-word unless you are an African American. (For a while, you couldn't call a gay person the "q"-word, but when gays began to openly use it, it suddenly became okay.)

You're confusing social norms with laws. There's no law saying you can't call someone an illegal alien; but some people might have opinions about language you use. That's THEIR right to free speech. You're the first person I've ever heard argue for 'using the n word playfully', and I'm wondering if I've misjudged you that you suggest that. Regardless, all of your examples fit what said about confusing social norms and he law.

Craig, you said that removing Confederate statues isn't re-writing history. But what about removing "Huckleberry Finn" from libraries? Or editing "black-face" performances out of old movies? Or locking up forever the radio and TV versions of "Amos and Andy"? If you take those things out of the public eye, then young people won't understand the significance of those bad things and the lessons we've learned from them. Craig, it's like removing all images of the Holocaust, or pictures of racist lynchings. Those images are the best arguments against ever going "there" again.

I see right-wingers, not Democrats, attacking Huckleberry Finn (and many other books) generally. Yes, removing offensive things can make sense. It's not 'erasing' any history worth preserving; the items still exist and can be found in appropriate setting. You're pretending the only context they're presented in is to condemn them, which is false. The only comparison to the holocaust or lynchings might be restricting things celebrating and promoting those crimes, or things with offensively graphics images, which again are available in an appropriate context. You're looking here for a madeup issue, not anything that has any legitimate place in choosing leaders.

 

[Emily L]

Mithrae, thank you for posting that. It's very thorough and explains a lot.

I wasn't around in the 1960's and '70's (and even later than that ), so all I know is what I've read and what people like you have told me. It seems to me that those items that you listed at the beginning of your post were very real problems back then, and they indeed needed to be addressed. Affirmative Action, I think, did a good job trying to remedy the injustices that generations of minorities had suffered.

But the question becomes, how long should AA go? I mean, the 1960's were, what, sixty years ago? (My math isn't great. ) The current generation's grandparents were children back then, if they were alive, at all. That means that the current generation of blacks hasn't suffered open discrimination anywhere near as bad as their parents or grandparents did. The current generation went to the same schools as whites, the same restaurants as whites, the same public restrooms as whites, etc., and it's been that way all their lives. Mixed friendships and marriages are common now. Yes, "hidden" racism still exists. But is hidden racism enough to justify the kind of quotas and guidelines that are characteristic of the AA of six decades ago? Maybe.

But another concern is its possible affect on whites who are too young to have seen "separate but equal." All they see is their applying for a job and being passed over because of a quota that must be maintained. Is the affect on these young whites any different then the affect that "separate but equal" had on young blacks? Will they, too, feel rejected by society over something that they can't help? Can they be expected to understand and accept why they will have to go through that now and (likely) for the rest of their lives? Will they see it as being punished for something they didn't do?

Mithrae, I know there are no easy answers. But those are the concerns I have about modern "affirmative action"-type laws and regulations.

As I said before, I hate racism. It makes me very angry, and when I see minorities parading for justice on TV, it makes me want to join them. But I just don't think we have quite found the solution, yet. But we should definitely keep trying.

 

[Mithrae]

Speech is limited when you can't call some one who jumped the Mexican-U.S. border an "illegal alien"--you have to say "unregistered immigrant." You can't, even playfully, use the "n"-word unless you are an African American. (For a while, you couldn't call a gay person the "q"-word, but when gays began to openly use it, it suddenly became okay.)

Craig, you said that removing Confederate statues isn't re-writing history. But what about removing "Huckleberry Finn" from libraries? Or editing "black-face" performances out of old movies? Or locking up forever the radio and TV versions of "Amos and Andy"? If you take those things out of the public eye, then young people won't understand the significance of those bad things and the lessons we've learned from them. Craig, it's like removing all images of the Holocaust, or pictures of racist lynchings. Those images are the best arguments against ever going "there" again.

Apologies for the second post, but I was getting some deja vu proofreading my post above, so I went back to have another read of our last brief exchange and some comments in it seemed relevant. Craig will point out the difference between government censorship of free speech and private citizens/groups using their free speech to point out when someone is being offensive: It's not that you can't use the n-word, it's simply that for the most part you can't use it in polite company, you can't say offensive things without social consequences. But even more than that, I would point out that far from racially offensive and inflammatory comments being completely taboo, they are probably one of if not the biggest reasons behind most Republicans' otherwise-inexplicable devotion to a perpetually lying, *****-grabbing New York billionaire who admires Putin and "falls in love with" communist dictators:
The birther movement among other things revealed an ugly reaction to America's first black president. Obama's immediate successor was the leading proponent of that ugliness, and filled his campaign and presidency with ambiguous or sometimes openly inflammatory white grievance rhetoric. Notably, despite apparently hating losers and traitors in any other context, going out of his way to defend Jim Crow monuments to Confederate slavers and call peaceful protestors in their favour "very fine people"... while in marked contrast calling peaceful black protestors against police brutality "sons of bitches" and suggesting they shouldn't be in the country.

Coming to terms with what is and isn't considered offensive and insensitive can be challenging for many of us, that's certainly true. But right-wing propaganda has created the (largely) fictitious bogeyman of 'the PC police' ready to jump down anyone's throat for uttering a single syllable astray, whereas the reality in almost all cases is that anyone who inadvertently says or does something offensive can easily apologize if that wasn't their intent.

Perhaps more to the point, social censure (not government censoring) of offensive or taboo content is something which can be found in all different political, religious and sub-cultural groups, and from America's religious right and dedicated 'patriots' perhaps most of all! So why is it that it's only censure of careless or controversial comments about disadvantaged groups which is singled out and attacked as 'PC culture,' or limits on free speech as you put it? Does anyone call it 'PC culture' when criticism of American foreign policy is attacked as 'unamerican'? Do they call it 'PC culture' when praise for the likes of Hitler is condemned? It is fully expected and to some extent accepted that criticism or offensiveness towards America or support for America's enemies will be censured by various groups... but for some reason, when it's something insensitive or offensive towards a marginalized group, the subsequent censure gets singled out and demonized as an assault on history or on the very freedom of speech itself!

The right-wing propaganda which perpetuates this bogeyman is obviously not an objective analysis of policies or social trends, but a cynical, reactionary effort to prey on and exaggerate the unease and ultimately fears of declining social dominance, particularly but not exclusively among white evangelicals. Trump's racially inflammatory rhetoric didn't make him popular solely or even mostly because of overt racism among his supporters: It's a bit more subtle than that I think (and hope) in that the unease of changing demographics, exaggerated by the 'PC police' propaganda, created for many people a fearfulness to which Trump's brashness - his rudeness - came across as "standing up to" this largely-fictitious bogeyman.

 

[Craig234]

But the question becomes, how long should AA go?

As long as major inequities caused by the legacy effects of past discrimination continue to exist. The idea is for affirmative action to end when those inequities do.

 

[Emily L]

Craig, I don't know how to do double quotes, so I'll have to do it this way . . .

------------------------------

Emily L:

. . . You can't, even playfully, use the "n"-word unless you are an African American. . . .

Craig234:

. . . You're the first person I've ever heard argue for 'using the n word playfully', and I'm wondering if I've misjudged you that you suggest that. . . .

------------------------------

I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT! There's NOTHING in my post to imply that I would EVER say that! I was using it as an example of the kind of language that is generally accepted and allowed when blacks say it but is not acceptable when whites say it. I was NOT arguing for using the "n"-word playfully!

Gosh, Craig, that word picking thing is what Tucker Carlson is famous for. You're not a fan of his, are you?

 

[Craig234]

Craig, I don't know how to do double quotes, so I'll have to do it this way . . .

------------------------------

Emily L:

. . . You can't, even playfully, use the "n"-word unless you are an African American. . . .

Craig234:

. . . You're the first person I've ever heard argue for 'using the n word playfully', and I'm wondering if I've misjudged you that you suggest that. . . .

------------------------------

I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT! There's NOTHING in my post to imply that I would EVER say that! I was using it as an example of the kind of language that is generally accepted and allowed when blacks say it but is not acceptable when whites say it. I was NOT arguing for using the "n"-word playfully!

Gosh, Craig, that word picking thing is what Tucker Carlson is famous for. You're not a fan of his, are you?

Emily, the topic here is your breakdown of 'concerns' you have about both parties making you not want to support them (Hm, Tucker Carlson is famous for his concerns), so the context of you raising Democrats being against the playful use of the n word is that it's you clarifying why you object to voting fot Democrats, because they're against the playful use of the n word.

I didn't make that up, you said it. Why would you say that to explain your concerns about Democrats limiting free speech, if you weren't arguing for it to be allowed? I said repeatedly you are raising non-issues, things that have no place as serious reasons in selecting who to vote for, and you brought up 'playful use of the N word'. See my point? THAT is why you don't want to vote for Democrats? It's what you said.

 

[Emily L]

Apologies for the second post, but I was getting some deja vu proofreading my post above, so I went back to have another read of our last brief exchange and some comments in it seemed relevant. Craig will point out the difference between government censorship of free speech and private citizens/groups using their free speech to point out when someone is being offensive: It's not that you can't use the n-word, it's simply that for the most part you can't use it in polite company, you can't say offensive things without social consequences. But even more than that, I would point out that far from racially offensive and inflammatory comments being completely taboo, they are probably one of if not the biggest reasons behind most Republicans' otherwise-inexplicable devotion to a perpetually lying, *****-grabbing New York billionaire who admires Putin and "falls in love with" communist dictators:
The birther movement among other things revealed an ugly reaction to America's first black president. Obama's immediate successor was the leading proponent of that ugliness, and filled his campaign and presidency with ambiguous or sometimes openly inflammatory white grievance rhetoric. Notably, despite apparently hating losers and traitors in any other context, going out of his way to defend Jim Crow monuments to Confederate slavers and call peaceful protestors in their favour "very fine people"... while in marked contrast calling peaceful black protestors against police brutality "sons of bitches" and suggesting they shouldn't be in the country.

Coming to terms with what is and isn't considered offensive and insensitive can be challenging for many of us, that's certainly true. But right-wing propaganda has created the (largely) fictitious bogeyman of 'the PC police' ready to jump down anyone's throat for uttering a single syllable astray, whereas the reality in almost all cases is that anyone who inadvertently says or does something offensive can easily apologize if that wasn't their intent.

Perhaps more to the point, social censure (not government censoring) of offensive or taboo content is something which can be found in all different political, religious and sub-cultural groups, and from America's religious right and dedicated 'patriots' perhaps most of all! So why is it that it's only censure of careless or controversial comments about disadvantaged groups which is singled out and attacked as 'PC culture,' or limits on free speech as you put it? Does anyone call it 'PC culture' when criticism of American foreign policy is attacked as 'unamerican'? Do they call it 'PC culture' when praise for the likes of Hitler is condemned? It is fully expected and to some extent accepted that criticism or offensiveness towards America or support for America's enemies will be censured by various groups... but for some reason, when it's something insensitive or offensive towards a marginalized group, the subsequent censure gets singled out and demonized as an assault on history or on the very freedom of speech itself!

The right-wing propaganda which perpetuates this bogeyman is obviously not an objective analysis of policies or social trends, but a cynical, reactionary effort to prey on and exaggerate the unease and ultimately fears of declining social dominance, particularly but not exclusively among white evangelicals. Trump's racially inflammatory rhetoric didn't make him popular solely or even mostly because of overt racism among his supporters: It's a bit more subtle than that I think (and hope) in that the unease of changing demographics, exaggerated by the 'PC police' propaganda, created for many people a fearfulness to which Trump's brashness - his rudeness - came across as "standing up to" this largely-fictitious bogeyman.

Mithrae, you're right--and I was wrong--and I appreciate your making a very good point.

As you said, I was confusing PC with government censorship, which are two different things. And also, like you said, a lot of my fellow conservatives seem to confuse the two, as well.

For example when an employee of a private business says something that is racially offensive and gets fired for it, that's not the government--that's a private matter. In fact, Mithrae, I can't even think of a time when the U.S. government censored any kind of speech (exept to protect military secrets, etc.).

I don't know where my mind was, but it certainly wasn't in my head, and I again thank you for correcting me on that.

.

 

[Emily L]

. . . I didn't make that up, you said it. Why would you say that to explain your concerns about Democrats limiting free speech, if you weren't arguing for it to be allowed? . . .

Craig, you're talking about two different issues. I DO think that such speech should be allowed by the government--but I, personally, would NEVER say that kind of thing. Nor do I WANT people to say it.

Look. I don't like fishing. I could never bait a hook, catch a fish, throw it on board and watch it die. I just can't do that.

But I think people should have the right to do that.

Now, when I say the above line (the line just above this one), it does NOT mean that I, personally, want to fish. Nor does it mean I WANT people to fish.

But that's the conclusion you were drawing. You were tying my example to ME, personally, which was wrong.

(I love seafood, by the way. )

 

[Craig234]

Craig, you're talking about two different issues. I DO think that such speech should be allowed by the government--but I, personally, would NEVER say that kind of thing. Nor do I WANT people to say it.

Look. I don't like fishing. I could never bait a hook, catch a fish, throw it on board and watch it die. I just can't do that.

But I think people should have the right to do that.

Now, when I say the above line (the line just above this one), it does NOT mean that I, personally, want to fish. Nor does it mean I WANT people to fish.

But that's the conclusion you were drawing. You were tying my example to ME, personally, which was wrong.

(I love seafood, by the way. )

Emily you just equated fishing and 'playfully saying the n word' as equally valid activities deserving protection *when there is no Democratic policy to ban people saying the n word playfully* and you're saying that in a discussion about reasons for which party to vote for. Do you not get how bad and crazy that argument is, even if you don't want to do it?

Hey, reasons to vote for Democrats include democracy, actually caring about the people, less corruption, less plutocracy, economics that benefit the people more, healthcare, the environment for a start - oh wait, you say not to vote for them because other people deserve the right to say the n word playfully you don't want to do which the Democrats don't threaten? Gotcha.

 

[Emily L]

Emily you just equated fishing and 'playfully saying the n word' as equally valid activities deserving protection *when there is no Democratic policy to ban people saying the n word playfully* and you're saying that in a discussion about reasons for which party to vote for. Do you not get how bad and crazy that argument is, even if you don't want to do it?

Hey, reasons to vote for Democrats include democracy, actually caring about the people, less corruption, less plutocracy, economics that benefit the people more, healthcare, the environment for a start - oh wait, you say not to vote for them because other people deserve the right to say the n word playfully you don't want to do which the Democrats don't threaten? Gotcha.

Craig, there are two things going on here (a different "two things" than I mentioned before).

As I told Mithrae a while ago, I was wrong about the government censoring speech. The government doesn't do that.

The second thing is that my objection to what you said was that you were (strongly) implying that I, personally, wanted to say the "n"-word, when I absolutely did not want to say it. I'm running out of ways to tell you that. I tired that fishing example, but it didn't seem to work. It's not your fault--my ways of explaining things are limited and I'll have to come up with another way to get my point across.

Again, this is my fault--not yours.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, there are two things going on here (a different "two things" than I mentioned before).

As I told Mithrae a while ago, I was wrong about the government censoring speech. The government doesn't do that.

The second thing is that my objection to what you said was that you were (strongly) implying that I, personally, wanted to say the "n"-word, when I absolutely did not want to say it. I'm running out of ways to tell you that. I tired that fishing example, but it didn't seem to work. It's not your fault--my ways of explaining things are limited and I'll have to come up with another way to get my point across.

Again, this is my fault--not yours.

If it helps, the first time you mentioned it, that's how I read it and reacted; but I accepted you saying you didn't personally want to say that, and updated my response, so there's no issue about you personally wanting to say it.

 

[Emily L]

If it helps, the first time you mentioned it, that's how I read it and reacted; but I accepted you saying you didn't personally want to say that, and updated my response, so there's no issue about you personally wanting to say it.

Thank you.

I apologize again for my lack of communications skills. I wanted to ask a linguist for help, but I couldn't find the words.

 

[post]

But, Post, those are actual concerns of mine. While Biden, himself, is against "open borders," I've heard other Democrats say we should remove all current restrictions on immigration. And, yes, I realize that's just hearsay since I can't produce proof of anybody saying that, but I have heard it. And I put "affirmative action" in quotes because many Democrats still think we should push hard to see that certain races are represented in all things, even if it means unofficial quotas.

Voting majorities in 23 states put those state govs under total G.O.P. control. Why?

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/09/17/americas-least-college-educated-states/2/ https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/09/04/28-states-with-the-shortest-life-expectancies/5/ Least educated 1. West Virginia Life expectancy at birth 2020: 72.8 > Adults with a bachelor’s degree or...

debatepolitics.com

 

[ataraxia]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

Also another way to put the same thing: justice and law in a modern civil society vs the freedom of the jungle where Darwinism rules.

 

[less right]

This thread is part of the reason why: Biden approval rating dips to lowest point in latest CBS News poll

You people are chasing voters away from your party and you don't even know it.

The silver lining is this time it only took two lines.

 

[Craig234]

Also another way to put the same thing: justice and law in a modern civil society vs the freedom of the jungle where Darwinism rules.

Even right-wing states have what they view as justice and law. The left believes the strong should help weaker people, the right is in favor of exploiting them, systemically.