Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy

[JoeB131]

If it were up to me, every voter would have to take a test before they are allowed to vote. A very simple test with very simple questions anybody with even the slightest understanding of government should be able to answer. Of course Democrats would have a hissy fit if we ever did that, but Republicans would celebrate it. Such a system would probably wipeout at least 20% of Democrat voters if not more.

Yes, we'd have a hissy because the last time that was done was in the South to keep blacks from voting.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Instead of trying to invent new ways to keep the Darkies from voting, how about giving them a good reason to vote for your party?

 

[Jarlaxle]

But that wasn't your original premise. Your original premise was that White Folks are soooo tired of Political Correctness (i.e., not being an asshole) that they elected Trump.

Except Trump lost by 10 million votes. But those white people were really upset. Even though less of htem voted for Trump.

Oh, so now it's 10 million? Where did that other 7.5 million come from?

Trump wiped the stage in the primaries. He beat out every other candidate with a new record of voter turnout. Yes, his anti-PC is very attractive to many people including myself. Trump talked about politics the way family members do, the way the people at the bar do, the way coworkers do. While there is no possible way to prove that, I believe that's what made him our nominee and eventual President.

Joey thinks the voices in his head can vote.

 

[Jarlaxle]

But you see, that's the problem. You let the states run things, you get voter suppression, and the Electoral College encourages that sort of thing. Or do you think it's just a coincidence that Wisconsin barely went Republican this time for hte first time in 30 years after Scott Walker imposed a bunch of voter suppression measures?

There is no voter suppression. That's just a made up liberal lie. Every election has some kind of problems, but you can't call it suppression by making one law for all people.

If you really want to know the truth (and I doubt it) liberals used race to cover their real fear about Voter-ID. Democrats will vote if it's convenient enough. Week long voting, polls open late at night when they finally wake up, bus rides to the polls, mail in ballots, things like that. But if you make Democrat voters have to put some effort into voting, some of them will just stay home because they really don't care much about voting in the first place.

They wouldn't be able to pull hobos off of train tracks, give them some cigarettes, and drive them to the polls to vote Democrat without an ID. If they were to state the truth which is many of their constituents are lazy, that wouldn't sit very well. So what they did (as they always do) is use race to promote their lie.

Guy, the only one putting you out of business is you. If you are one tenth of what you come off as here, I doubt anyone would want to do business with you.

Nope, I have to be certified by the government every year. If they refuse to certify me, I can't work.

Would you be offended if I made a "certifiable" joke?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it were up to me, every voter would have to take a test before they are allowed to vote. A very simple test with very simple questions anybody with even the slightest understanding of government should be able to answer. Of course Democrats would have a hissy fit if we ever did that, but Republicans would celebrate it. Such a system would probably wipeout at least 20% of Democrat voters if not more.

Yes, we'd have a hissy because the last time that was done was in the South to keep blacks from voting.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Instead of trying to invent new ways to keep the Darkies from voting, how about giving them a good reason to vote for your party?

The difference between then and now is everybody has the ability to get an education to learn how to read today, so it's not discrimination unless you are totally stupid and didn't learn how to read.

Democrats rely on people that don't know a thing about politics. A Democrat politicians worst fear is an educated voter.

 

[JoeB131]

The difference between then and now is everybody has the ability to get an education to learn how to read today, so it's not discrimination unless you are totally stupid and didn't learn how to read.

Democrats rely on people that don't know a thing about politics. A Democrat politicians worst fear is an educated voter.

Sorry, guy, if voters were educated, you'd never win.

Why do you think it is you guys get all upset about the "liberal" universities.

But you keep showing that tape of the mentally ill woman, like you are making a point other than demonstrating what a racist shitstain you are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The difference between then and now is everybody has the ability to get an education to learn how to read today, so it's not discrimination unless you are totally stupid and didn't learn how to read.

Democrats rely on people that don't know a thing about politics. A Democrat politicians worst fear is an educated voter.

Sorry, guy, if voters were educated, you'd never win.

Why do you think it is you guys get all upset about the "liberal" universities.

But you keep showing that tape of the mentally ill woman, like you are making a point other than demonstrating what a racist shitstain you are.

I wasn't speaking of college, more of educated in politics. Besides, many of those college kids do end up becoming more conservative when they get out of the brainwashing liberal colleges, go to work, start paying taxes, and realize where those taxes go to.

People don't live in the inner-cities and ghettos because they are so well versed in politics. Yet all those inner-cities and ghettos are Democrat. You know, where that popular vote came from?

 

[JoeB131]

I wasn't speaking of college, more of educated in politics. Besides, many of those college kids do end up becoming more conservative when they get out of the brainwashing liberal colleges, go to work, start paying taxes, and realize where those taxes go to.

Not really. Hillary won people with a college degree. It was the dumb white trash who never finished college that supported Trump because he lied to them about their dad's factory job coming back.

People don't live in the inner-cities and ghettos because they are so well versed in politics. Yet all those inner-cities and ghettos are Democrat. You know, where that popular vote came from?

Yes, that's where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE, in the cities. So why are we giving extra votes to prairies again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. Hillary won people with a college degree. It was the dumb white trash who never finished college that supported Trump because he lied to them about their dad's factory job coming back.

It's that attitude that lost you the election. This condescending attitude of your party was an insult to blue collar workers: living in moms basement, basket of deplorables. How do you think we working people look at such disdain? Then you ask why we should keep the electoral college????

Yes, that's where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE, in the cities. So why are we giving extra votes to prairies again?

So that cities don't run the entire country, that's why. If we ever went to a popular vote count, the politicians would only pander to them and nobody else. They would be promising the city voters everything under the sun at the expense of the rest of the country. There would be absolutely no presidential representation for those people. It wouldn't even make sense to vote, and I'm sorry, but the President is supposed to represent the entire country, not just where the most people are.

 

[Nosmo King]

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

No. PC is another word for ignoring the Truth to protect the feelings of some group that no longer wants to accept their place or failings in life.

No. PC is something boors abhor because their rudeness is checked by society. PC is bane to the rude, the crude, the socially inept.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Not really. Hillary won people with a college degree. It was the dumb white trash who never finished college that supported Trump because he lied to them about their dad's factory job coming back.

It's that attitude that lost you the election. This condescending attitude of your party was an insult to blue collar workers: living in moms basement, basket of deplorables. How do you think we working people look at such disdain? Then you ask why we should keep the electoral college????

Yes, that's where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE, in the cities. So why are we giving extra votes to prairies again?

So that cities don't run the entire country, that's why. If we ever went to a popular vote count, the politicians would only pander to them and nobody else. They would be promising the city voters everything under the sun at the expense of the rest of the country. There would be absolutely no presidential representation for those people. It wouldn't even make sense to vote, and I'm sorry, but the President is supposed to represent the entire country, not just where the most people are.

The country is the people not a piece of land.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. Hillary won people with a college degree. It was the dumb white trash who never finished college that supported Trump because he lied to them about their dad's factory job coming back.

It's that attitude that lost you the election. This condescending attitude of your party was an insult to blue collar workers: living in moms basement, basket of deplorables. How do you think we working people look at such disdain? Then you ask why we should keep the electoral college????

Yes, that's where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE, in the cities. So why are we giving extra votes to prairies again?

So that cities don't run the entire country, that's why. If we ever went to a popular vote count, the politicians would only pander to them and nobody else. They would be promising the city voters everything under the sun at the expense of the rest of the country. There would be absolutely no presidential representation for those people. It wouldn't even make sense to vote, and I'm sorry, but the President is supposed to represent the entire country, not just where the most people are.

The country is the people not a piece of land.

So people on those pieces of land should have no representation?

If you want to tax my land out in the boonies so that people in the city can get free child care, guess what, it is about land as well as the people because people own that land.

 

[rdean]

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

That's the GOP's biggest excuse for their racism.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Not really. Hillary won people with a college degree. It was the dumb white trash who never finished college that supported Trump because he lied to them about their dad's factory job coming back.

It's that attitude that lost you the election. This condescending attitude of your party was an insult to blue collar workers: living in moms basement, basket of deplorables. How do you think we working people look at such disdain? Then you ask why we should keep the electoral college????

Yes, that's where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE, in the cities. So why are we giving extra votes to prairies again?

So that cities don't run the entire country, that's why. If we ever went to a popular vote count, the politicians would only pander to them and nobody else. They would be promising the city voters everything under the sun at the expense of the rest of the country. There would be absolutely no presidential representation for those people. It wouldn't even make sense to vote, and I'm sorry, but the President is supposed to represent the entire country, not just where the most people are.

The country is the people not a piece of land.

So people on those pieces of land should have no representation?

If you want to tax my land out in the boonies so that people in the city can get free child care, guess what, it is about land as well as the people because people own that land.

You are advocating a corrupt form of democracy. Look up "rotten boroughs" and reflect on the importance of land ownership in deciding whose vote is worth more.

 

[Mac1958]

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

That's the GOP's biggest excuse for their racism.

One must appreciate the delicious irony here.

A PC zealot providing an absolutely perfect example of THE signature behavior of PC in a thread that is pretending there is no such thing as PC.

Sometimes this place is just too easy. Just observe, point at it, and say "hey, look at that!"


.

 

[dblack]

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

That's the GOP's biggest excuse for their racism.

One must appreciate the delicious irony here.

A PC zealot providing an absolutely perfect example of THE signature behavior of PC in a thread that is pretending there is no such thing as PC.

Sometimes this place is just too easy. Just observe, point at it, and say "hey, look at that!"


.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as PC, just that it's not an inherently bad thing. As long as it doesn't translate in to laws, it's society moderating behavior voluntarily. That's better than government mandates in most cases.

It seems that most people complaining about PC are just miffed that their point of view isn't the societal norm. And I get that - mine hardly ever is. But there's nothing wrong with people having convictions and acting on them. PC is no different than the bakers who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings. It's a valid means of expressing our preferences in the public sphere.

 

[Mac1958]

Surely PC is another word for good manners ?

That's the GOP's biggest excuse for their racism.

One must appreciate the delicious irony here.

A PC zealot providing an absolutely perfect example of THE signature behavior of PC in a thread that is pretending there is no such thing as PC.

Sometimes this place is just too easy. Just observe, point at it, and say "hey, look at that!"


.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as PC, just that it's not an inherently bad thing. As long as it doesn't translate in to laws, it's society moderating behavior voluntarily. That's better than government mandates in most cases.

It seems that most people complaining about PC are just miffed that their point of view isn't the societal norm. And I get that - mine hardly ever is. But there's nothing wrong with people having convictions and acting on them. PC is no different than the bakers who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings. It's a valid means of expressing our preferences in the public sphere.

I'm virulently against PC because it is intellectually dishonest, cowardly, authoritarian, and (worst of all) terribly counter-productive on an inter-generational scale.

Not to mention flying directly against the spirit (please note I wrote "spirit") of the First Amendment, which is my personal fave.

All of those are pretty goddamn important negatives in my book, and I provide specifics & examples all the time. And many of the specifics & examples I post are provided by honest liberals who feel PC has gone too far.

And by the way, there ARE people who claim/pretend the behavior doesn't exist, such as the OP.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. Hillary won people with a college degree. It was the dumb white trash who never finished college that supported Trump because he lied to them about their dad's factory job coming back.

It's that attitude that lost you the election. This condescending attitude of your party was an insult to blue collar workers: living in moms basement, basket of deplorables. How do you think we working people look at such disdain? Then you ask why we should keep the electoral college????

Yes, that's where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE, in the cities. So why are we giving extra votes to prairies again?

So that cities don't run the entire country, that's why. If we ever went to a popular vote count, the politicians would only pander to them and nobody else. They would be promising the city voters everything under the sun at the expense of the rest of the country. There would be absolutely no presidential representation for those people. It wouldn't even make sense to vote, and I'm sorry, but the President is supposed to represent the entire country, not just where the most people are.

The country is the people not a piece of land.

So people on those pieces of land should have no representation?

If you want to tax my land out in the boonies so that people in the city can get free child care, guess what, it is about land as well as the people because people own that land.

You are advocating a corrupt form of democracy. Look up "rotten boroughs" and reflect on the importance of land ownership in deciding whose vote is worth more.

It has nothing to do with who's land is worth more. It has to do with making sure everybody across the land has some sort of representation.

The population of Idaho is 1.5 million people. The population of NYC is 9 million people. Without an electoral college, one state would be worth over five times less than just one city. What President would give a damn about their concerns? If anything, the left would target them (like they do the wealthy today) to provide funds for those populated areas.

The only reason you are finding problems with this is because it has worked against your side in a few recent elections. If it benefited you, you would be sticking up for the college like it meant life or death. It's just like the immigration debate. Most minorities vote Democrat. But the Democrat politicians will never tell you why they want to flood this country with immigrants, instead, they tell you how it shows our compassion and caring.

Trust me, if minorities voted Republican most of the time, you would see how fast a wall would be built. Their problems are not ours is what they'd say. What other people in the world would be stupid enough to support politicians that are striving to make them a minority in their very own country other than liberal whites? Brainwashing on display.

 

[JoeB131]

It's that attitude that lost you the election. This condescending attitude of your party was an insult to blue collar workers: living in moms basement, basket of deplorables. How do you think we working people look at such disdain? Then you ask why we should keep the electoral college????

So that stupid people's votes can count because they didn't have the good sense to move to where the jobs are? No, that isn't a good reason.

In fact, there's NO GOOD REASON to have an electoral college, a racist institution meant to keep the voters down.

And, yes, I do have contempt for people who were screwed over by the last time the GOP let the rich rape the working class, who then voted to let them do it again.

So that cities don't run the entire country, that's why. If we ever went to a popular vote count, the politicians would only pander to them and nobody else. They would be promising the city voters everything under the sun at the expense of the rest of the country. There would be absolutely no presidential representation for those people. It wouldn't even make sense to vote, and I'm sorry, but the President is supposed to represent the entire country, not just where the most people are.

So we have a president now who only represents the Rust Belt and Rural trash that voted for him, because they were stupid enough to believe that he'd bring their jobs back that don't exist anymore?

Really, guy? Really?

So you all applaud when Trump give tax breaks to MILLIONAIRES in order to not screw carrier workers as bad as they were going to screw them.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm virulently against PC because it is intellectually dishonest, cowardly, authoritarian, and (worst of all) terribly counter-productive on an inter-generational scale.

Not to mention flying directly against the spirit (please note I wrote "spirit") of the First Amendment, which is my personal fave.

I know, you can't tell that great joke about the blonde and the blow job in the office anymore. That's just horrible, mean old PC Police reporting you to HR.

All of those are pretty goddamn important negatives in my book, and I provide specifics & examples all the time. And many of the specifics & examples I post are provided by honest liberals who feel PC has gone too far.

Washed Up Comedian = Honest Liberal. Not a guy who has failed to realize his shtick ain't funny no more.

And by the way, there ARE people who claim/pretend the behavior doesn't exist, such as the OP.
.

No, we just don't think it's a problem. YOu actually should be sensitive to other people's feelings. If you really can't make a point without insulting someone's gender or race, you probably didn't have a point. You were probably just being an asshole. Which is why HR had that little talk with you.

 

[JoeB131]

The population of Idaho is 1.5 million people. The population of NYC is 9 million people. Without an electoral college, one state would be worth over five times less than just one city. What President would give a damn about their concerns? If anything, the left would target them (like they do the wealthy today) to provide funds for those populated areas.

So what we have now is the people in the populated areas subsidizing these sparsely populated states. for instance, while a taxpayer in NY will only see .79 of his tax dollar returned do his state, the guy from Idaho is going to get 1.28. That's really kind of fucked up.

Of course, guess who is going to whine about being taxed too much.

The only reason you are finding problems with this is because it has worked against your side in a few recent elections. If it benefited you, you would be sticking up for the college like it meant life or death. It's just like the immigration debate. Most minorities vote Democrat. But the Democrat politicians will never tell you why they want to flood this country with immigrants, instead, they tell you how it shows our compassion and caring.

except who is actually flooding the country with immigrants? "Democrats", or rich Republicans who don't want to pay Willy White Trash a fair wage.