Because (according to BrainGlutton) their primary (no pun intended) concerns are: “…immigration, globalization, offshoring, stagnant incomes, declining prospects, and a Republican Establishment that clearly cares nothing for the economic interests of the white working class.”
I think that if Dorothy had access to this army, she could have skipped the Tin Man and the Lion.
This is an example of the type of political correctness that I believe is engendering PC fatigue.
Misogynists as well.
Logically, yes. And in fact there is some overlap in the constituencies to whom the two appeal, and some voters are actually wavering as to whether to back Trump or Sanders. But Trump’s base, I’m sure, includes many people to whom the word “socialism” is anathema even if one could make a case that the public policies that would satisfy them could be so described, and many who could not vote for a Democrat because of social/cultural issues.
What’s also true:
Agreed?
So “Stop Hate” is political correctness rum amok?
I’m curious to know if you can defend this summary of what I posted.
To remind you, here’s what I quoted:
Many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad.
And you summarized it as simply “stop hate.”
So first to answer your question: no, “stop hate,” as a general sentiment, is not in any way amok.
But to respond to chalked text supporting Trump by carrying signs such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, resounding “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad, is amok.
Are you still puzzled over the difference?
The difference is that “Stop hate,” standing alone, is a worthy sentiment. But “Stop hate,” on signs, combined with chanting, in response to the appearance of a political support slogan, is not fairly summarized as simply, “Stop hate;” that summary elides the intensity of the reaction.
See?
. . . neither unreasonable nor unpredictable.
Predictable? These days, sadly, yes. Reasonable? Absolutely, assuming you’re using the Bizarro-World definition of the word.
Apparently there is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with chalked graffiti supporting Trump (first amendment, donchaknow) … BUT … any demonstration against said graffiti is completely unreasonable political correctness.
I’m struggling to figure out why one is any different than the other.
Are you, really?
This is a result of the student protests.
Look closely. Think hard. No difference at all between the two protests?
Got a line, Rick?
What if they weren’t chanting? Still amok?
What if it was only chanting, but no signs? Amok?
What if there were no chanting, and only signs reading “Stop Hate?” Amok?
No. None. You just don’t like how they were responded to … which is the lane you’re attempted to swerve this argument into.
They were both protests/demonstrations of some political stripe. Of what worth and/or obnoxiousness … who gives a shit?
In the spirit of the Bricker Doctrine, tough noogies for you.
I’m not sure where the line might be, but the nice thing about this set of facts is that no matter where the line might appear, the totality of this protest is on the far side of that line. I think that any counter-protest targeted at simply expressing the alternative view that Trump is a putz is perfectly acceptable, but any attempts to stop the Trump chalkers – especially by engaging the university’s apparatus – crosses the line.
Heckler’s Veto. When a protest has the effect of engaging the government to shut down the disfavored viewpoint, it’s no longer simply “tough noogies.”
Oh come on. Chalking things up is obnoxious and weirdly secretive. Just come out and counter protest if it means that much to you. (You closeted Trump supporters I mean.)
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to stop graffiti, chalk or otherwise. There are oh so many ways for those so silenced to express their views that don’t involve vandalism.
What was “shut down”?
Truth and justice. And possibly religious freedom. I always get confused on that one.
Look, I think both Bricker and Trump are giant assholes (of a different type), but to say that someone the Emory incident isn’t PCness run amok is, I think, being willfully obtuse.
It wasn’t hate speech. It was a name. I mean, if it’s perfectly reasonable to be afraid of the GOP front runner to have his name on campus is it perfectly reasonable to try to ban college Republican groups?