Author Topic: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington  (Read 83799 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #195 on: December 18, 2016, 05:00:42 pm »
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy. You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #196 on: December 18, 2016, 07:40:40 pm »
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy. You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #197 on: December 18, 2016, 08:00:09 pm »
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy. You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance (and not necessarily by her), whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...

Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 08:03:21 pm by Lana Reverse »
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #198 on: December 18, 2016, 08:26:13 pm »
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy. You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance, whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...

Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.

You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." It is a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism. And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 08:33:39 pm by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3532
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #199 on: December 18, 2016, 08:40:59 pm »
So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?

Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.

Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?

Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day. 

Do try to keep up.

The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE  mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.

If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...
Donald is typical of "competent politicians"? In what universe? One where Chiang Kai-shek won China?

Also we are discussing a man who frequently loses his shit at SNL skits, time magazine not using his favored gendered pronoun and critical Broadway productions, so much for going into automatic "scree" mode, and competency for that matter!

The point is, like much of what Donald does, babbling a metric ton of bullshit with a single salient point in it isn't a master plan of his, just a byproduct of his childlike inability to focus on anything for more than a minute flat. It just happens to work to his advantage in one area only.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 08:45:22 pm by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #200 on: December 19, 2016, 12:43:46 pm »
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." It is a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism. And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama.

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #201 on: December 19, 2016, 01:47:20 pm »
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama.

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #202 on: December 19, 2016, 06:14:53 pm »
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email. And the second is that the poll only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama.

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.

You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Even Then

  • Guest
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #203 on: December 19, 2016, 07:51:00 pm »
So, inferring from your use of this article as a demonstration of "PC culture", your definition of "PC culture" includes

- people "demanding" change instead of just "asking for" change
- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a show
- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guys
- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian food
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces
- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impediments

Online RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
  • What's All This Tangly Rainbow Shit Mean?
    • My Twitter
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #204 on: December 19, 2016, 08:27:55 pm »
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces

If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah.  Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally.  Inciting people to riot or commit crimes?  Again, nothing wrong with punishing that.  But, just being a douchebag?  And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?"  That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain.  I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice.  Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

Also, poetry is the lowest form of creative writing, so not studying non-white poets is like not being able to study non-white mimes.  That last bit may or may not be sarcasm.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Art Vandelay

  • Greatest Person to Ever Grace this Shitty Forum
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9623
  • Gender: Male
  • Check Your Privilege
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #205 on: December 19, 2016, 09:09:46 pm »
- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a show
Take note, people. Culture, and especially religion, are not inherently sacred. If you believe a thing is sacred because your imaginary friend said so, fine, you do you. However, and I cannot stress this enough, you do not have the right to have your beliefs validated by non-believers. Honestly, I'm absolutely fed up with religious entitlement.

Also, I should point out that culture itself, much like pretty much everything humanity has come up with, is highly iterative. Progress as a whole is far more the result of adopting and iterating upon foreign ideas than it is about originality. My overall point is that if appropriation never happened, be it cultural or otherwise, humanity would be a far more primitive species than it is now.
- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guys
If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.
- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian food
See my above rant. You've no right to take away people's access to certain food because it's not made exactly the way you think it should be made. That, again, is one of the most entitled things I've ever heard.

Also, once more, food is just as iterative as anything else humanity does. Look into the history of any given dish, and it almost certainly started life as a bastardised version of something foreign. Of course westernised Chinese food is going to be different from actual Chinese food. Food changes to suit the local tastes and available ingredients, and (much like cultural appropriation) that is a good thing.
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces
See Rav's post. Not being offended is not a basic human right, despite what some may think.
- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impediments
And here's the one halfway valid point. Out of six. So yeah, that's a thing.

Even Then

  • Guest
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #206 on: December 19, 2016, 09:36:36 pm »
Quote from: Rav
If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah.  Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally.  Inciting people to riot or commit crimes?  Again, nothing wrong with punishing that.  But, just being a douchebag?  And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?"  That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain.  I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice.  Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).

Quote
If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.

Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.

Offline Art Vandelay

  • Greatest Person to Ever Grace this Shitty Forum
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9623
  • Gender: Male
  • Check Your Privilege
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #207 on: December 19, 2016, 10:18:27 pm »
Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.
Okay, that argument has some merit. Too bad it's really not why this is a thing.
Quote
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”
Again, the reason why the students want less white authors is simply because they're white. It's less to do with the idea that, say, the students would receive a better and more rounded understanding of poetry by studying authors with more diverse perspectives, and more that idiots are offended because white men.

Online RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7783
  • Gender: Male
  • What's All This Tangly Rainbow Shit Mean?
    • My Twitter
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #208 on: December 20, 2016, 12:27:53 am »
Quote from: Rav
If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah.  Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally.  Inciting people to riot or commit crimes?  Again, nothing wrong with punishing that.  But, just being a douchebag?  And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?"  That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain.  I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice.  Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).

That's better, aye.  I don't mind there being penalties for being a prick; just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean you have the right to use a given space for airing such things.  If that's not okay with you, find somewhere else to mouth off or stop being a cunt.

Quote
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”

That is not what "hostile" means!  What you meant, you insipid bellend, is "non-inclusive."  Fuck, I'll grant you that; if you're going to waste your time getting a Walmart greeter English degree, you might as well study authors that aren't explicitly white.  Of course, its English literature, which could mean anything from "English-language literature" to "literature specifically from England."  If its the former, then it is rather queer that your courses never cover non-white authors, but if its the latter...well, yeah.  England, up until relatively recently, has been pretty fucking white.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
« Reply #209 on: December 20, 2016, 02:25:49 am »
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."