Indeed. And very well put. It’s interesting how many “liberals” can’t seem to see that.
By the way, if not already mentioned, there was a very interesting interview with Milo last night on the highly successful Tucker Carlson Show. (I presume it’ll be on youtube by now)
Maybe you’ve been called an SJW Cuck? Or a race traitor?
And again, I have to ask, as obnoxious as those people are, are they actually a problem? Are the people who will actually get in your face about microaggresions such a substantial part of *any *cultural sphere that they would pose a problem?
(And before you answer that question, please try to differentiate between the people who would do that for microaggressions and the substantially larger portion of people who protest bog-standard racism and sexism, which the right has been trying very hard to fold into one group as “PC” to discredit the whole bunch.)
Two more points.
When someone says “You hurt me”, you can often justifiably say, “you need to grow a thicker skin” or “what kind of wimp are you?”. What you can’t say is “No I didn’t”. Like, I remember yonks ago, I was not in a good place, mentally, and many of the things I freaked the fuck out about were, in retrospect, nonsensical things to get mad about. I got no sympathy, and really, there was no reason for me to get sympathy; I was legitimately a thin-skinned whiner. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t hurt me.
Also, this:
Totally reasonable statement. It’s entirely reasonable to believe that there are closeted trans individuals near you. Would you call it just as nonsensical if it was about gay people?
Nonsense. The people you are describing don’t exist. Or to the agree that they do, they are a minority that is so small as to be negligible.
Again, I have to ask, what is the working definition of “political correctness” for this thread? I have no idea. The term seems to be a meaningless snarl word that freely expands or contracts to whatever the argument being made is supposed to imply. Just like I said two pages ago. Can we maybe have some distinction between the “political correctness” that strives to enforce microaggressions, and the “political correctness” that strives to enforce basic decency and inclusiveness against assholes like Milo Yiannopolous?
And protestors had every right to protest.
Let me congratulate you on your brave stance against assault. It’s a pity that more conservatives, who I believe commit by far the majority of political violence in this country, don’t share your views.
Protesting has consequences. And what are the details of the shooting? Was it in self defense?
Plus who said exclusively left wing nut problem? There are some right wing nuts too. I just don’t find fighting for liberty as odious as fighting for tyranny.
And you are part of the fight for tyranny. Milo absolutely should have a platform to speak to those who want to hear him. Your ad hominem attacks notwithstanding. At least his book is doing well.
Read the vile and hateful diatribe you just wrote? Why are you entitled to a platform?
What happened to so-called liberalism that it has become, unironically, the antithesis of what it claims to be? Depressing.
Attacking freedom of speech with such vitriol and not even concerned about violent anarchists who beat people and destroy property. Not surprised.
So, this here, you are advocating for violence against protesters?
Few details, but there have been no claims by either of the parties that it was self defense, so I don’t know that I would make that assumption.
So, you admit that you should not judge a group by the worst of its actors?
Shooting people who are expressing their freedom of assembly in a peaceful protest is fighting for liberty against tyranny?
Here’s the thing though- the protests should be about WHAT he/they are saying and stand for, not merely because he’s being allowed to speak at all. He ought to have the right to speak, and people should have the right to protest his statements.
But protesting and trying to deny him his right to speak at all? That’s some spooky shit right there.
I’d think that Voltaire’s statement “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.” ought to be the watchword of both sides in this argument. Yiannopolous should have free reign to speak whatever bullshit he chooses, and everyone else is free to tell him he’s a malignant, idiotic bigot and troll.
In self defense? Absolutely. People have the right to defend themselves and their property.
Nice misrepresentation.
And the protest where the shooting took place was obviously not peaceful.
All that is hate speech now. How dare you advocate for free speech?!? Someone might be offended.
Protesting, peacefully, is fine, even up to and including advocating (through peaceful protesting – i.e. speech) that the school and school organizations not invite bigots to speak. That’s not, in any way at all, denying anyone’s right to speak.
This protest was mostly peaceful, but a few violent assholes arrived at some point and were violent. The violence is unacceptable (and very helpful to bigoted assholes), but the peaceful protests are perfectly fine.
This is so absolutely wrong it is mind blowing. The vast, vast majority of political violence in the U.S. since 1970 comes from the left. Second place? Sports riots.
Wanna list? Here it is. Link.
The idea that the right is responsible for most of the political violence in silly.
Slee
You said “Protesting has consequences.” in response to a protester being shot. Where are you coming up with self defense now?
You did ask if it was in self defense, but the story does not say. Neither party is making that claim though, so while it is possible, it would not be my first assumption.
Yes, it is a nice representation that you have come up with. You are “representing” the protestors as fighting for tyranny. You are representing the person who shot the protester as fighting for freedom.
I had nothing to do with it, the representation is all of your own words.
Well, obviously not, what with the protestors were being shot at.
I don’t think that society wants to rehabilitate the phrase, as much as you can even determine what ‘society’ wants. I certainly don’t think you could get a straight majority vote for rehabilitating the term 'PC, for example, and I think invoking ‘society’ as a whole is just a cop-out more often than not. If individuals want to rehabilitate the term, then the onus falls on the people trying to rehabilitate the term, which should be obvious. Trying to put the onus on people who like dismissing criticism as ‘oh, that’s just PC nonsense’ doesn’t make any sense, as they clearly like the term the way it is so have no reason to want to ‘rehabilitate’ it.
The reason “that’s just some PC nonsense” is an effective way to dismiss legitimate criticism is that there is a lot of nonsense that goes on that many of the people who would like to rehabilitate either the term of the concept refuse to condemn. The way to rehabilitate to term is to cut out the nonsense part, and just call out actual bigotry instead of accusing people of being bigots for things that are just disagreement and not bigotry. If someone says ‘That’s just a guy in a dress’, call the jerk a bigot - but reserve ‘bigot’ for that jerk and not when someone says 'Jay said that Sally is just a guy in a dress," without putting on a trigger warning. If someone says ‘I think black people are only good for picking cotton and playing basketball’, use bigot - but don’t use it when someone says ‘I think it’s OK for a white person to play the blues or wear dreadlocks’. And call out those incorrect usages as bad, instead of insisting that they never happen or are actually OK. Then accusations of bigotry will do a better job at sticking, instead of getting dismissed with ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ logic or lumped in as 'that’s just more PC nonsense .
BTW, are you counting everyone arguing on the other side from you ‘conservative’? My politics, for example, are overall significantly left of Hillary Clinton, so I wouldn’t remotely fit into the ‘conservatives’ basket.
By ‘community’, do you mean people who spend a lot of time arguing online and not a lot of time interacting with people in the real world? Because I know a number of transgender (and agender, and genderqueer) people who don’t spend their days in an echo-chamber blog, and they really don’t spend a lot of energy debating whether someone is bad depending on trans vs trans* vs trans-gender vs transgender vs trans gender. Like I said, actual trans people that I’ve met are much more worried about the possibility of getting killed for needing to go to the bathroom or for revealing their medical history too early or late when dating someone new than about being highly offended at people for not picking up the latest fad in hyphen or asterisk placement, or for not knowing that ‘transsexual’ is just a dated term and not a medical term when they haven’t had much exposure to trans issues.
You apparently failed to read my post, since what I was dismissive of is someone accusing a person of being transphobic for quoting what a friend of theirs used to say before they educated them about the term being offensive without using a trigger warning. That does nothing to indicate that I lack understanding of ‘transgender 101’, it simply means that I don’t accept that quoting someone using a slur is equivalent to endorsing using the slur.
The fact that you’re accusing me of not understanding ‘transgender 101’ because I don’t agree with the concept of requiring trigger warnings for use of bad language, or because I don’t think that someone is a bigot for accurately quoting what someone else said even if it includes a slur is a pretty good example of the ‘PC run amok’ behavior that keeps the term from being rehabilitated, BTW.
I mean both. And I have a lot of exposure to this, professional exposure, every single day.
I’ll take you at your word, for lack of better evidence.
I illustrated why you seem to be unaware of many issues regarding us. Dating and knowing a few of us does not automatically equal having any understanding of our issues, nor being a good representative for our community and our rights. What exactly is your actual Q&E in this area? Mine can be Googled pretty easily if you don’t want to search on here.
Sure, but don’t fight the hypothetical. I’ve already said many times that I don’t care to “rehabilitate” it, because it’s never been anything useful in my lifetime. I’m just playing along with the thread.
But neither the people calling out bigotry, nor the people who peddle nonsense in the name of calling out bigotry, ever use the phrase “politically correct.” Nobody says, “You can’t say that, it’s not PC.”
Donald Trump calls CNN “fake news” even though it’s not, but he gets away with it because there are people who peddle fake news for ad revenue. Calling CNN “fake news” is a way to shut down all criticism without having to address it directly. This is bad. And you’re saying the onus for fixing this misuse is on the people peddling the fake news? For one, they’re not calling their own news “fake news,” and for two, getting them to stop peddling fake news is a hard problem. It’s much easier, or it should be, to get grown adults to stop shutting down arguments by calling major news outlets “fake news.”
I don’t see this as any different.
This seems fairly lazy. “Here’s a list of all civil unrest.” Luckily, looking into poor citing is often good fun. To be as fair as possible to you, I’m counting only the events as listed in your cite, and not events referred to in the individual pages. I’m also counting “political violence from the left” as any violence arising from leftist groups or individuals, or violence enacted specifically against rightist groups. And vice-versa, of course. Not included is “self-defense” violence, also events without their own pages or description. So;
1970s: The list includes 32 examples, though many without pages (and a couple misattributted pages, but that’s wikipedia, I guess).I count 3 examples of leftist-only violence, 6 examples of rightist-only violence, 9 examples of both left- and rightist violence, and 8 examples where there was either no violence or there was violence but without attributable political persuasion.
1980s: A much shorter list! 8 examples, 4 with actual pages (plus several with depressingly short precis). By my count and again going purely from Wikipedia, none of these examples seem to be situations where we can stick violence on any one (or many) political persuasion.
1990s: Also short! 11 examples, 3 without pages, though at least one has another tiny explanation. I get 1 example of leftist violence, 0 of rightist or both, and 8 of no violence or not politically attributable violence.
2000s: 15 examples, 2 with no pages! I get 1 of leftist-only violence, 2 of both left- and right-ist violence, 0 of only rightist violence, and 10 in the no violence/not attributable category.
2010s! Wow, 25 whole pages, and even the ones without pages all have a little description. I make it 1 each example of left- and right-ist only events, 2 of both, and 21 in the no violence/not attributable category.
So what does this show? Well, by and large, as a source intending to show that “The vast, vast majority of political violence in the U.S. since 1970 comes from the left”, it’s rather woefully lacking. We don’t see a big swing either way. I’m not sure how sports riots would take second place in a list of “political” violence - perhaps sleestak means sports riots are the second most common kind of civil violence, with political being the top? But that doesn’t seem to be accurate, either, at least per the cite; there’s a vast, vast majority, but it’s of either apolitical violence or violence of unknown or unattributable politics-wise violence.
Of course, this is just my judgment. I’m presuming sleestak arrives at different numbers, since he cited it.
I’ve been sincerely trying to find an example of a conservative activist group shutting down an event. I’m not trying to make a point, I think it happened but I’m only finding left wing activist groups shutting down events in my web searches. Are they underreported or do I suck at searching?
Apropos the current discussion centering on the left’s inclination toward anger and violence toward its opponents, here’s a left-wing Irish magazine cover showing gun sights on Trump’s head with the caption, “WHY NOT”
While the professor in question does not represent the general mainstream political left, her logic gives deep doubt about the quality of the education she is giving her students:
*
“Why are you (cops) protecting these neo-Nazis? You should be kicking their ass!”
*
So police should exist as an arm to kick the asses of people one disagrees with…?
