Exactly. Now, you can call those cases “PC”, but if you do, you’re just proving my point that “PC” is nothing more than a shield bigots use to avoid being called on their bigotry. If you say something incredibly racist, sexist, transphobic, etc., it’s not just a matter of “you hurt someone’s feelings”. It reflects on your employer, that they are willing to hire someone who will openly and freely voice views like that. It effects your current and future coworkers - if I were a transwoman, I would not feel safe or respected working in the same department as Curt Schilling. These are entirely valid reasons to consider firing someone. Particularly someone in a position of outreach or media.
Keep it up all you want, and try to marginalize my comments as whining all you want, but but the evidence is clear that a huge portion of the electorate is fed up with political correctness and the orgy of bullying and close minded offense-finding that it’s been engaging in. Even your own political compatriots are trying to wise you up about it and their words are falling on deaf ears. So go ahead, keep it up. In the meantime leftist politics is on the run everywhere it’s managed to gain prominence, whether here in the U.S., where conservatives hold all the reins of power, or in England with the Torys and Brexit, or to the many other areas of western Europe where liberalism and political correctness has worn out its welcome. The fact you can’t see all this is typical, and it’s largely what has brought you to this state of affairs to begin with. So, hooray for my side I guess, as it’ll be the one benefitting from your insistence on shooting yourselves in the foot over and over and over again.
I posted this in another thread, but it fits here too:
Most of the examples of this sort of thing (supposed liberal or SJW overreach) I’ve seen have been some variation on the Matt Taylor t-shirt “incident”:
-
Someone says or does something (in this case wears something) publicly that several liberals find objectionable.
-
These liberals publicly criticize the person who said/did/wore this thing.
-
The person who said/did/wore the objectionable thing either sincerely apologizes (like Matt Taylor did – good on him, and it shows his maturity and decency, IMO), gives a weak apology, or just complains about being criticized.
That’s the vast majority of the supposed SJW overreach that I’ve actually heard of. Very little of people actually losing their jobs or otherwise being harmed more than just being criticized.
As for present politics, it’s very possible that a majority (or enough to effect change) want to regress to the time in which public racism, bigotry, and misogyny were not harshly criticized. I hope not – I hope it’s just a flash in the pan that could very quickly change, but only time will tell.
Or an angry mob of unwashed leftists can just beat you for expressing an opinion.
At least some of the left realize it makes for bad optics by shrieking "don't lose the propaganda war"The problem here is that a great deal of what the self-appointed white knights of social engineering on the left call bigotry is not in fact bigotry. And then when people make this common sense observation and point it out, the response from the left is to assert what they really want is to be free to express their bigotry. And so it has gone for decades, with the result that Donald Trump sits in the White House signing executive order after executive order in an attempt to undo what you’ve wrought, and Congress, most state governorships and legislatures and the Supreme Court are now in the hands of your opponents. It’s hard to imagine a bigger clue stick that you must have been doing something wrong.
Yes, there are asshole liberals (of both the washed and unwashed variety, most likely). There are also asshole conservatives. I condemn anyone being violent or advocating for violence. The vast majority of liberals are not violent, nor do we advocate for violence.
Focusing on the assholes makes Stephen Bannon smile, but it doesn’t contribute to legitimate debate.
The majority of violent attacks, and especially those that have drawn blood, have come from anti-Trump protestors, as can be seen over and over again in the numerous Youtube videos linked to the right of octopus’ video.
Huh? You have statistics? Do you mean for all “violent attacks” this year? In America? Some other classification?
Or does this come from nowhere? “Look at YouTube” isn’t really a cite for statistical assertions.
TTBOMK = To The Best Of My Knowledge (I’ve been told I overuse this so I’ve abbreviated it to save time 
) Anyway…
I think we might be drifting a little from the original claim I made. Kimstu wrote that it is not rational for a voter to take into account the actions of the candidates’ supporters when deciding who to vote for. My point was simply that this isn’t necessarily the case. Depending on the voter and his/her priorities, the actions of a candidates supporters might well be relevant.
For instance, Joe, my hypothetical voter, is a free speech absolutist. While hardline leftists may have claimed, prior to Nov. 8th, that Trump would muzzle the press, Trump himself never campaigned on that. Sure, he said things about what he called “dishonest media”, but he never (TTBOMK) said anything like “When I’m elected, I’ll pass laws that address media imbalance” or anything like that.
Given that hardliners on both sides engage in a fair amount of hyperbole, and given that Trump never campaigned on a promise to restrict the media (TTBOMK), and given that hardline leftists have made similar accusations against previous Republican candidates based on little evidence that have often (not always, but often) turned out to be false alarms, it is rational for Joe to be sceptical of the hardline leftist’s claims about Trump’s attitude to free speech.
However, it is also rational for Joe, as a free speech absolutist, to be concerned when Hillary’s most vocal supporters start launching (occasionally violent) protests against “cultural appropriation” and certain campus speakers. It’s reasonable to believe that, if elected, these people might push their anti free speech agenda with more vigour and, eventually, succeed in passing authoritarian anti free speech laws.
Put yourself in the position of Joe on November 8th as he left the house to cast his vote. At that time, it would have been perfectly rational for him to believe hardline leftists who warned us Trump would build a wall or block immigration from certain countries, because Trump said himself that he’d do those things. However, again, at that time, it would not have been rational, I think, for him to believe hardline leftists who warned us Trump would clamp down on the media, and on government twitter feeds and the like, because Trump didn’t say he’d do those things.
It’s also rational to believe hardline leftists when they say that they want to see “cultural appropriation” eradicated. Furthermore, it’s also rational to worry about the possibility that hardline leftists might try to enshrine this desire into law.
Consequently, in this specific instance, it makes sense for a free speech advocate like Joe to factor the anti free speech behaviour of certain hardline leftists into his decision to vote against Clinton. The fact that Trump has engaged in authoritarian, anti free speech practises since being sworn in isn’t germane here because we’re only talking about what Joe could reasonably be expected to know on November 8th, and at that time it would have been reasonable for him to be sceptical of any hard leftist warnings Trump’s anti free speech propensities because (a) they weren’t based on any firm promises he made and (b) hard leftists have voiced similar concerns about previous Republican candidates and they’ve often (TTBOMK) turned out to be overblown.
I completely agree that it would have been perfectly rational for Joe to take seriously hardline leftists warnings about Trump’s plans for the wall for exactly the reason you mention. Same for warnings about his protectionism, nationalism, Islamophobic immigration policies, and tax plans. However, I believe it would not be rational for Joe to take those same hardliners on the left seriously if they said “Trump will muzzle the press” or “Trump will censor government twitter feeds” because those platforms weren’t outlined in Trump’s campaign.
In an ideal world, I would like sensible centrists on the left and right to repudiate the worst excesses of the hardliners on both sides. I don’t think centrists need to take responsibility for what every hardliner says. Indeed, that would be unfair. However, they do need to get more involved in the war of ideas which is currently taking place between the moderate and the hard left. This is an area in which representatives of the centre right have made some progress battling their own extremists. An excellent example is David Frum, who, as a centrist Republican, wrote some truly scathing articles in The Atlantic about Trump and Trumpism, ie. the nationalist fervour he’s managed to drum up. It didn’t do much good, unfortunately, but it’s an example of the kind of behaviour I’m keen to see more of from centrists on both sides.
Of course, one needs to pick and choose one’s battles. One can’t respond to silly Twitter spats with multi-page articles in national magazines. However, in much the same way as Frum took a stand against Trumpism without picking on specific Trump voters, it’s possible (and appropriate) for sensible centre left commentators to take a stand against the (as yet unnamed) authoritarian ideologies adopted by sections of the hard left, without singling specific people out. This hard left authoritarianism manifests in things like “no platforming”, or “cultural appropriation” or vainglorious “call out culture”, and it needs to be fought.
In short, while I don’t think it’s every sensible leftist’s responsibility to repudiate hardline leftist individuals, I do think it’s every sensible leftist’s responsibility to repudiate certain authoritarian hardline leftist ideas. The same is true for sensible centrists on the right.
I think this is unfair to her. We don’t know anything much about her, and we don’t know what was going through her head when she made that joke. She may have just been trying to be ‘edgy’ like Sarah Silverman or Jimmy Carr. Besides, she only had about 100 followers, (most of whom, presumably, were friends) and she tweeted from her personal account. It took a “journalist” from Gawker to decide this random tweet was newsworthy for it to go viral.
Of course, once it went viral, her employers had no choice but to let her go. She did work in PR after all. But, with all due respect to her, Justine Sacco was a nobody working at some no-account PR firm that nobody had ever heard of and nobody here could name without googling. It’s impossible to defend the notion that this silly little tweet was somehow newsworthy. Indeed, the so-called journalist who “broke the story”, Sam Biddle, later admitted that he only did it to get more internet traffic to his blog.
Personally, I think it’s undeniable that, however bad you think Sacco may be, Sam Biddle is, by several orders of magnitude, a worse person. This is an example of how one can “call out hate speech” and still come off as the bad guy.
To tie this back into my original point, I’d like to ask: If a voter (a) cares deeply about freedom of speech, (b) considers both candidates to be equally horrible in different ways (c) witnesses, while he’s mulling over who to vote for, numerous instances of people suffering disproportionately harsh consequences for making off-colour jokes, (d) notices that a disproportionate amount of these instances are coming from hardline supporters of one candidate, and (e) notices that those same hardline supporters also “no platform” people and frequently shame people for “cultural appropriation”, is it rational for him to take into account the behaviour of those same hardliners when deciding who to vote for?
In this specific instance, I believe the answer is yes.
That may be. But what does the viewer see? Rampaging hordes of leftwing agitators assaulting people, burning property, calling for Melania Trump to be raped, etc. How do you think that’s going to play? It’s going to make millions of people agree with the barbarians? Or want law and order?
I’m reminded of the dangers of using the word “niggardly” (which has nothing to do with the N word,) or of the teacher who got in trouble for using the word “homophone” (which means words that sound the same, nothing to do with sexual orientation.) Or of how someone can get in trouble for saying the Mandarin words *Na yi ge *(meaning “that one”) which, if pronounced quickly, can sound like the N word.
Yes, various infotainment outlets have skillfully used such footage for political purposes. I condemn the violence (and have in probably dozens of other posts), as have numerous other prominent liberals and liberal Dopers. Such violence hurts liberal causes, obviously.
But it’s a tiny part of liberalism as a whole in America. Focusing on it is what Steve Bannon wants you to do – I tend to think he doesn’t have your best interests at heart.
Singling out this one, since I recall the episode in DC – from my memory, a white DC official used the term in a public meeting, was harshly criticized and temporarily fired, then after a reasonable and informative discussion, was rehired, and said publicly that this episode was informative and positive.
Such criticism, even when it’s mistaken, can still lead to good discussions and positive outcomes, like in this instance. He shouldn’t have been fired, but this was reversed and mutual understanding was increased by the whole instance.
Yep, it’s absolutely being on the lookout for and striving to find things to make take offense at and make an issue of which is at work. It provides a way for humans of a certain ilk to find a perch from where they can look down on everyone else.
I would like to question your proof for these authoritative declarations. Would, too, if you had offered anything but your own awesomeness. As well, there appears to be a fly in the ointment. Actually, more flies than ointment. Its the math, except it isn’t math, its just arithmetic.
For starters, we are assured that the Trump base is all about the PC, they totally hate it. But looking at his campaign by pep-rally strategy, PC anxiety is but one of many. So, are you lumping in anti-Muslim anxiety in with PC? Trade policies, PC? Because if being anti-PC was the beating heart of his appeal, why did he even bother bringing up that other stuff? If a significant number of Trump voters voted for him because of those other things, well, kinda weakens your point, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
OK, let’s just pretend that your argument makes sense, for the moment. And Trump voters were motivated almost entirely by a raging fury at having to say “Ms.”. But his opponent got more votes. (You may have heard.) Wouldn’t that mean that more voters approved of PC than disapproved? See the numbers, see how one is bigger? I’ll give you a moment to check that. Take your time, I know this stuff is hard.
Your…ah…“argument”…if that is the word…is fatally flawed. Your punctuation, however, was spotless!
As I understand it, I don’t think that’s Novelty Bobble’s position. As I read it, he’s arguing that such concern over “social media dustups” may be a deciding factor for voters who aren’t committed to Trump or Clinton. I got the strong impression that a lot of voters thought Trump and Hillary were equally bad (there was a good NYT piece which made the same point. I’ll try and dig it up). For those voters, voters who thought they’d suffer no matter who won, it’s conceivable that the behaviour of hardline leftists on social media might have nudged them marginally toward Trump. That, I think, is what Novelty Bobble is saying. Is this petty? It’s hard to say. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. It depends on how seriously you take social media. Rightly or wrongly, a great many people take it tremendously seriously. Is it irrational? I don’t believe so. If you truly think you’re screwed no matter who wins, it doesn’t take much to tip the balance away from one candidate and towards another.
I disagree. The debating tactics of the hard left have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. I witnessed this first hand during Brexit. The liberal commentariat, exemplified by writers at publications like The Independent, The Guardian, and The New Statesman, collectively wrote countless thousands of words excoriating the Brexit campaign - and, by extension, its supporters - as shamefully racist. Comparatively, they spent next to no effort explaining to people why staying in the EU was a good idea. Fishermen in Grimsby who had seen their livelihoods decimated by EU regulations were excoriated as bigots by privately educated opinion columnists who wouldn’t set foot on a trawler at gunpoint. People who were concerned about NHS funding, and who believed that leaving the EU would allow the government to divert more funds to the NHS weren’t only stealth bigots and racists, they were idiots as well. Sovereignty was just a dogwhistle codeword for racism. We had months of this in England. It was exhausting, and it was simply safer for people on the right to keep their intention to vote Leave a secret. Why waste precious time and energy defending yourself from spurious accusations of bigotry when you can just lie about your beliefs until you get in the voting booth? This is why the Brexit polls were so wrong, just as the General Election polls were wrong before that, and just as the US election polls were wrong back in November. If you doubt this chilling effect exists, why were these polls so consistently wrong, and always in the same direction?
So, exactly what you’re doing, then?
There are some good examples in Jon Ronson’s book ‘So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed’. One which sticks out is the case of Adria Richards. She was at a tech conference and the speaker was showing off a new kind of dongle. A man sitting in the row behind her made a juvenile joke to his friend about dongles (something pretty innocuous “My dongle’s bigger than that” or something along those lines) and Richards - who was not involved in their conversation in any way - was so offended that she took a snapshot of the man on her phone and tweeted it to her 15,000 twitter followers. That was her very first reaction. These followers then bombarded the man’s company with complaints and by the end of the day he’d been fired. There are plenty more examples but I don’t have the book to hand right now.
No, that wasn’t her “very first reaction”. [http://www.dailydot.com/society/pycon-dongle-joke-misogyny-sexism-adria-richards/](No, that wasn’t “her very first reaction”-you might want to get [URL=“[URL=“http://www.dailydot.com/society/pycon-dongle-joke-misogyny-sexism-adria-richards/)”]the whole story about the proper sequence on events and the crap spewn by both sides.”]You might want to read the correct sequence of events and what came from both sides of this incidence.
Here’s the thing though- there are a lot of people out there who thought that all the offense and vitriol about the guy’s shirt was entirely unwarranted, ridiculous and wrong. and that he got forced to apologize for something that didn’t even warrant mention, much less a public mea culpa.
If you look at it from that perspective, the way that situation played out was absolutely horrible- a guy wears a shirt with some sci-fi women on it, and then gets called out by a bunch of self-important harpies on the Internet, and is forced to apologize publicly for it?
Fuck that; we can’t all run around tip-toeing about what some over-sensitive leftist might possibly be offended by, which is what the Matt Taylor story ultimately comes down to. Same thing with two guys making jokes between themselves about dongles, even if they were in slightly poor taste. Shame on that woman for not having the sense to let that slide.