Ah, I read the transcript of that interview. There was absolutely no coherence at all... Just trump being incoherent about nuclear weapons and something about political correctness being at the core of all issues somehow.
I'm not one to deny the existence of PCness running amok, but the way Trump brings it up makes me cringe.
Honestly, I don't even see it as running amok. Well, at least as specific cases I have read so far the issue is not in itself political correctness but rather ignorance... It's a variation of saying "no offense" and then immediately saying something offensive. At this stage trump being cringe worthy is an understatement lol.
A lot of the time on the right, railing against PCness is en vogue when it's just used an excuse to champion ignorance. However, even though I'm liberal-leaning myself, there definitely is a big problem with the far left in this area. Especially when it comes to so-called SJWs.
But... what exactly is the problem? Well, as far as I can tell the whole political correctness thing as a problem is entirely made up and used basically to disregard something outright. I don't think I have ever heard this been in used in a non-trump way so to speak or heard of a PC problem that actually was a PC problem.
So he's contradicting himself, but hasn't he done that on other issues too?
Well, the further left you go on a linear political spectrum, the more you start seeing similarities with the far right. Such as holocaust-denial being illegal in some European countries or those who think "hatespeech" should be a crime bearing somewhat of a striking resemblance to those who support blasphemy laws. Both the left and the religious right can actually be rather authoritarian in nature. Basically, they'd value not offending someone over supporting free speech full stop.
Well of course, but this just happened last night and it still surprised me for some reason....
I think you are mixing different things here. The political correctness thing at the US is not related to free speech at all. The government is not shutting people up at the US, at least as far as I know. The politically incorrect people at the US are simply using it as an excuse to be dismissive of people who call them out on being assholes and be overtly racist. However the government is not actually censoring them. As far as I can tell the whole politically incorrect problem is every bit as fictional as the supposed war on Christmas.Well, the further left you go on a linear political spectrum, the more you start seeing similarities with the far right. Such as holocaust-denial being illegal in some European countries or those who think "hatespeech" should be a crime bearing somewhat of a striking resemblance to those who support blasphemy laws. Both the left and the religious right can actually be rather authoritarian in nature. Basically, they'd value not offending someone over supporting free speech full stop.
But as far as Trump and a lot of politicians on the right, the term is used pejoratively quite often. The way they use it is usually an excuse to say ignorant or worse, factually incorrect things or "tell it like it is" (coincidentally also one of the few semi-coherent things many Trump supporters say when asked why they support him).
Well of course, but this just happened last night and it still surprised me for some reason....
lololol many SJWs are hypocritical as fuck. They complain about racism towards people of color, but they make racist remarks towards whites and act like shitheads towards them, at least on social media. But yeah, the left aren't exactly better about the whole PC thing either. Sensitizing everything, but tbh some things don't need to be said, like calling someone retarded or fag or whatnot.
No, it's not the government censoring people necessarily, but it still goes on, most notably in the media. A good example is many media outlets refusing to show or print Charlie Hebdo's first cover after the attacks. It could have been an opportunity to take all of the power away from these extremists by painting a target on everyone's back, but they chickened out instead of showing solidarity. Another example is some liberal politicians refusing to use Islam in the same sentence as terrorist and even going so far to make ridiculous statements like it being a "religion of peace" when it really isn't (none of the Abrahamic religions are, at best they're patently hypocritical when it comes to violence). Yet another example is Sanders and other liberals continuously bringing up the wage gape when it comes to men and women and often misrepresenting what it actually means. You can't force a group of people to seek out higher-paying jobs if they don't want it in some odd quest for "equality". It's just disappointing as someone left-leaning to agree with a lot of what the left stands for, but pussying out on some issues because of this intense fear of offending or alienating people.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
They have some really insane notions about how the world works. Some things definitely don't need to be said, but at the end of the day, words are just words. If you say something truly reprehensible in public you usually have to deal with the consequences. Most of this is a recent phenomenon and exists in part as a result of the internet and troll-culture.
It definitely is for some people, or at least to say and do things in poor taste. But the main problem with this are those who'd prefer to make doing so illegal or to censor it and act like it doesn't exist. There's no real operative difference between something like that or places where you get the death penalty for being blasphemous. Free speech is without a doubt the best way to tackle racism and bigotry.
So... it's not the problem but it still goes on? That doesn't make much sense. Even in the examples you mention it is still not an issue of free speech. Free speech is only an issue specifically when it comes to government censoring. Unless you make it illegal to censor yourself. What you have is people censoring themselves however if the reason is being scared of terrorists then I would argue this isn't a PC issue as much as it is terrorism doing its job (unfortunately).
Honestly, I see it as pandering or being just plain ignorant on his part. The majority of muslims actively choosing not be violent or waging war doesn't make the statement true. How can a religion be one of peace when it has been for centuries and continues to be at war with itself?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I said it's not as much of problem here in the US as far as the government goes, despite some people's best efforts. But it is still a problem among those who shape conversation and ideas.
Okay, let's look at the people. What constitutes mainstream really? It depends on the country, but if I say according to Pew Research Center, anywhere from 29%-86% of Muslims in the MENA and S. Asia believe apostates should be put to death. Is 29% really that small? Is that a passable minority when it comes to what most western societies would consider murder? What about the 44%-89% of Muslims who believe adultery is a crime and should be punishable by stoning? Or the 29%-74% of Muslims who believe Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well?
The problem is, how many Muslims are doing something against the ISIS? they're affected the most, but are they even fighting back?
Probably pandering, as I don't believe most white people see Islam as a religion of peace. But again, I'm just sharing what Muslims say, and that the Qu'ran is interpreted wrongly. But then, a lot of Christians say the same about the Bible too, but few others proved that the Bible is just as homophobic as claimed.
Christians who do that are putting emphasis on "their" version of Christianity, but the basis is still the same. Whether you cherrypick the things you wish to live by or completely add on to the Bible like the Mormans do with their book. The basis is still the Bible. Jews have this in common with Christians as far as the Pentateuch goes. Islam has somewhat of a similar problem due to how schismatic it is. But even so, the Qur'an says what it says, as do the hadith. There are scholars who say many different things about many different hadith and their worth, so who is really in a position to say what the "true Islam" is? No one can, and that's really the problem in itself.
Don't get me wrong, if you go by the actual ideas the religious have at their disposal, the potential for violence is there with most religions. But with others, not so much. Just look at the Jains. They're most important belief is non-violence towards all living things. You're not going to find that sort of notion by reading the Bible or the Pentateuch or the Qur'an. So if you can't, how can you ever say what Obama said with a straight face? So what you're saying is we should just lie in an effort to prevent violence? What does that accomplish really? Has this really saved any lives? The mouthbreathers are still going to be prejudice or racist towards people who don't look like them, what they do or don't believe about their religion seems inconsequential to me.
Not sure why you bring up defending homosexuality here. As far as I can tell, you can't really choose against your own inborn nature, yet you can choose to be religious or not. And the religious definitely don't have a problem with convicting people for their inborn nature, especially Christians and Muslims.
