American Politics

[kkck]

I don't know how cunning he is, but he knows how to appeal to people. Or at least, knows that people hate political correctness and is not afraid to look like a fool to destroy the idea of PC.

I'm choosing a candidate based on what he can do for America, and Bernie seems to do a lot more. I'm not sure why it matters in this case though, isn't Bernie for guns? Gun control market isn't doing shit, it's still easy for people to get their hands on guns and kill each other. Gun fanatics are just too obsessed with the idea of having guns over safety of people.

Is that as important, or is that important only because Rubio brought it up? Seems like you're against anything democrats do, but you give the republicans a pass when they're worse.

Would be better if the countries just boycotted the country as a whole.

Whats the real situation with PC at the US? I keep reading about people complaining about this but safe for a few exceptions it always seem like it's just racist old people or racist people unfortunate enough to inherit racist views complaining that people take issue with their racism..... Seriously, whats up here?

Can rubio do anything at all? The more I read about him the more he seems like a completely generic republican. No new ideas, caters to arbitrary fears, second amendment.and all that stuff... The only fun thing about his website is the twilight reference. JOIN TEAM MARCO! He seems like a poor man's jeb bush.

Lol. That's literally suicidal from an economic point of view. I'd gladly settle for trump getting banned from england. It seems to me that going through with his threat would likely hurt him more than it would hurt england lol.

 

[M3J]

Whats the real situation with PC at the US? I keep reading about people complaining about this but safe for a few exceptions it always seem like it's just racist old people or racist people unfortunate enough to inherit racist views complaining that people take issue with their racism..... Seriously, whats up here?

Can rubio do anything at all? The more I read about him the more he seems like a completely generic republican. No new ideas, caters to arbitrary fears, second amendment.and all that stuff... The only fun thing about his website is the twilight reference. JOIN TEAM MARCO! He seems like a poor man's jeb bush.

Lol. That's literally suicidal from an economic point of view. I'd gladly settle for trump getting banned from england. It seems to me that going through with his threat would likely hurt him more than it would hurt england lol.

People hate political correctness because they would rather say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays (I agree with this) or stereotype a race or sex or whatever. What's racist to us doesn't seem like racism to some others.

Nah, Rubio seems to be all talk, like most politicians. Dunno, but at least threatening to cut off ties with the US would be a good way to scare people into not voting for Trump. I'm not sure if it would hurt him that much as cutting off ties would hurt US.

 

[kkck]

People hate political correctness because they would rather say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays (I agree with this) or stereotype a race or sex or whatever. What's racist to us doesn't seem like racism to some others.

Nah, Rubio seems to be all talk, like most politicians. Dunno, but at least threatening to cut off ties with the US would be a good way to scare people into not voting for Trump. I'm not sure if it would hurt him that much as cutting off ties would hurt US.

I don't get the whole merry christmass vs happy holidays... I mean, who gives a crap? Maybe it misses the big picture but at least back when I lived at the US it didn't seem like anyone got offended when someone used either. Online I read about people getting offended when exposed to the one they don't like however almost without exception it seems like the people who complain about this are invariably assholes. It makes absolutely no sense to get angry at either regardless of whether you are jewish, muslim or christian or anything else. People are not mindreaders to know about this to begin with. The worst part is that the whole thing originates from department stores wanting to say something which applies to everyone rather than only most of their potential customers. Maybe I am missing something here but the whole thing seems increasingly idiotic and pointless.

The thing about that threat is, well, that it would be pointless. It's impossible for other countries to just cut ties with the US. The US is too big a buyer and seller to most countries. Any country that tries something like this would descend to a post-apocalyptic wasteland within weeks. And any country that could get away with such a thing is already a post apocalyptic wasteland to begin with.

 

[xi0]

People hate political correctness because they would rather say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays (I agree with this) or stereotype a race or sex or whatever. What's racist to us doesn't seem like racism to some others.

Political correctness has nothing to do with stereotyping anyone. The issue people have with it is walking on pins and needles over not saying what they THINK will offend someone. But how is devoting your time to worrying about what should and shouldn't be said productive in any way? Then it becomes a vicious cycle of people getting used to being told what is offensive and what isn't, and overreacting to anything and everything.

This isn't just an issue that conservatives harp on either. Little do they know that conservatives are plenty politically correct, but usually when it comes to things labeled more "patriotic".

 

[SharkBait]

Rubio's in the double digits, yes, slow and steady will win the race!

 

[M3J]

I don't get the whole merry christmass vs happy holidays... I mean, who gives a crap? Maybe it misses the big picture but at least back when I lived at the US it didn't seem like anyone got offended when someone used either. Online I read about people getting offended when exposed to the one they don't like however almost without exception it seems like the people who complain about this are invariably assholes. It makes absolutely no sense to get angry at either regardless of whether you are jewish, muslim or christian or anything else. People are not mindreaders to know about this to begin with. The worst part is that the whole thing originates from department stores wanting to say something which applies to everyone rather than only most of their potential customers. Maybe I am missing something here but the whole thing seems increasingly idiotic and pointless.

The thing about that threat is, well, that it would be pointless. It's impossible for other countries to just cut ties with the US. The US is too big a buyer and seller to most countries. Any country that tries something like this would descend to a post-apocalyptic wasteland within weeks. And any country that could get away with such a thing is already a post apocalyptic wasteland to begin with.

Few people would prefer to say merry Christmas. I'm guessing a lot of them love Jesus and would blow him, who knows.

Doesn't matter, the threat and making it look like they're serious should be enough to scare people. While they need the US, US also needs them.

Political correctness has nothing to do with stereotyping anyone. The issue people have with it is walking on pins and needles over not saying what they THINK will offend someone. But how is devoting your time to worrying about what should and shouldn't be said productive in any way? Then it becomes a vicious cycle of people getting used to being told what is offensive and what isn't, and overreacting to anything and everything.

This isn't just an issue that conservatives harp on either. Little do they know that conservatives are plenty politically correct, but usually when it comes to things labeled more "patriotic".

Trump's definition of political correctness seems to be skewed though. He thinks it's okay to call all Mexicans rapists and thieves. There's a difference between political correctness and ignorant statements.

 

[SharkBait]

I don't get the whole merry christmass vs happy holidays... I mean, who gives a crap? Maybe it misses the big picture but at least back when I lived at the US it didn't seem like anyone got offended when someone used either. Online I read about people getting offended when exposed to the one they don't like however almost without exception it seems like the people who complain about this are invariably assholes. It makes absolutely no sense to get angry at either regardless of whether you are jewish, muslim or christian or anything else. People are not mindreaders to know about this to begin with. The worst part is that the whole thing originates from department stores wanting to say something which applies to everyone rather than only most of their potential customers. Maybe I am missing something here but the whole thing seems increasingly idiotic and pointless.

The thing about that threat is, well, that it would be pointless. It's impossible for other countries to just cut ties with the US. The US is too big a buyer and seller to most countries. Any country that tries something like this would descend to a post-apocalyptic wasteland within weeks. And any country that could get away with such a thing is already a post apocalyptic wasteland to begin with.

That reminds me of a recent story where people were offended the cops bumper stickers had a In God We Trust on them http://www.newsherald.com/article/20151225/NEWS/151229486

 

[kkck]

Few people would prefer to say merry Christmas. I'm guessing a lot of them love Jesus and would blow him, who knows.

Doesn't matter, the threat and making it look like they're serious should be enough to scare people. While they need the US, US also needs them.
Trump's definition of political correctness seems to be skewed though. He thinks it's okay to call all Mexicans rapists and thieves. There's a difference between political correctness and ignorant statements.

Well, the difference is that the US is the sort of country that can impose crippling economic sanctions of Russia without going to war with russia. Other countries don't have that luxury. The threat would be invariably empty. And who exactly would be scared? Trump supporters? They are clearly the sort of people that would look at this situation, brutally misunderstand it and say "BRING IT BITCH!".

 

[xi0]

Trump's definition of political correctness seems to be skewed though. He thinks it's okay to call all Mexicans rapists and thieves. There's a difference between political correctness and ignorant statements.

I could give a shit what his definition of it is, I'm talking about the actual issue with PC things. I don't really care how people like to bend it. That doesn't mean it's merely an excuse to say racist things, because that's not what it is.

 

[Franckie]

I forgot to add one thing to my 2016 prediction: Clinton wins the presidency and will conveniently fail to find her inner progressive until her second term.

I don't know how cunning he is, but he knows how to appeal to people. Or at least, knows that people hate political correctness and is not afraid to look like a fool to destroy the idea of PC.

Exactly. Trump isn't an idiot and actually has a keen understanding of complicated subjects such as health policy. He understands the Republican base better than any of his other Republican rivals with how beautifully he preys upon the racial and economic anxieties of Republican voters. In their eyes, Trump does not look like a fool. Quite the contrary, he looks presidential.

 

[xi0]

In their eyes, Trump does not look like a fool. Quite the contrary, he looks presidential.

Based on what? Almost every Republican I know dislikes him...

 

[M3J]

Well, the difference is that the US is the sort of country that can impose crippling economic sanctions of Russia without going to war with russia. Other countries don't have that luxury. The threat would be invariably empty. And who exactly would be scared? Trump supporters? They are clearly the sort of people that would look at this situation, brutally misunderstand it and say "BRING IT BITCH!".

I did think of that, but the other people with common sense would probably do whatever they can to keep Trump from winning. It's just that something needs to be done to stop Trump from ever having a chance. Or any republican, really.

I could give a shit what his definition of it is, I'm talking about the actual issue with PC things. I don't really care how people like to bend it. That doesn't mean it's merely an excuse to say racist things, because that's not what it is.

But it is an excuse to say whatever dumb thing people want. I don't even support being politically correct.

 

[kkck]

That reminds me of a recent story where people were offended the cops bumper stickers had a In God We Trust on them http://www.newsherald.com/article/20151225/NEWS/151229486

I could give a shit what his definition of it is, I'm talking about the actual issue with PC things. I don't really care how people like to bend it. That doesn't mean it's merely an excuse to say racist things, because that's not what it is.

Political correctness has nothing to do with stereotyping anyone. The issue people have with it is walking on pins and needles over not saying what they THINK will offend someone. But how is devoting your time to worrying about what should and shouldn't be said productive in any way? Then it becomes a vicious cycle of people getting used to being told what is offensive and what isn't, and overreacting to anything and everything.

This isn't just an issue that conservatives harp on either. Little do they know that conservatives are plenty politically correct, but usually when it comes to things labeled more "patriotic".

Fair enough but... is it really that big an issue? In most cases I hear about this it comes down to people like trump who are being blatantly racist or otherwise saying something which is inherently hurtful. Well, that aside, what exactly is it that people want to say but can't because of PC? In some cases people even bring up free speech and whatnot but overall even that does not make sense in this context.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 8, 2016 ---

I did think of that, but the other people with common sense would probably do whatever they can to keep Trump from winning. It's just that something needs to be done to stop Trump from ever having a chance. Or any republican, really.

But it is an excuse to say whatever dumb thing people want. I don't even support being politically correct.

Trump is almost certainly not going to win even if he ranks highly in the polls. He is catering to the lowest segment of the voters and he is absolutely hated by republican establishment (at least as far as I understand the situation). Even if trump does win, he is unlikely to get sympathy from voters who aren't attached to a specific party.

 

[Newkerzy]

Fair enough but... is it really that big an issue? In most cases I hear about this it comes down to people like trump who are being blatantly racist or otherwise saying something which is inherently hurtful. Well, that aside, what exactly is it that people want to say but can't because of PC? In some cases people even bring up free speech and whatnot but overall even that does not make sense in this context.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 8, 2016 ---

Trump is almost certainly not going to win even if he ranks highly in the polls. He is catering to the lowest segment of the voters and he is absolutely hated by republican establishment (at least as far as I understand the situation). Even if trump does win, he is unlikely to get sympathy from voters who aren't attached to a specific party.

I'm gonna ask, is Charlie Hebdo a champion of free speech or are they abusers of that very same free speech? The fact that they outright insult a religion by blatantly equating their religion and depicting their spiritual leader/prophet as an insane madman who encourages violence, but is all the more praised as heroes for it, downright defeats the purpose of free speech itself.

Free speech is not a special right, nor is it an obligation. It's a responsibility.

I want all of you to be honest to me and say it to me straight, What do you think of Charlie Hebdo?

 

[kkck]

I'm gonna ask, is Charlie Hebdo a champion of free speech or are they abusers of that very same free speech? The fact that they outright insult a religion by blatantly equating their religion and depicting their spiritual leader/prophet as an insane madman who encourages violence, but is all the more praised as heroes for it, downright defeats the purpose of free speech itself.

Free speech is not a special right, nor is it an obligation. It's a responsibility.

I want all of you to be honest to me and say it to me straight, What do you think of Charlie Hebdo?

In this context they were "made" into heroes IMO. Normally they are a magazine that is simply critical of all religions. Wasn't there a cover on which they called god himself the biggest murderer in history recently, regardless of religion? Under normal circumstances they would say whatever they want and would be subjected to whatever their readers have to say about it (and if enough people complain they would point out everyone is to PC rather than coming up with better content I guess). However they got bombed specifically to shut them up at which point they are heroes. They might be assholes but no one deserves to be attacked for being an asshole. As far as I can tell none of what they have done implies a hateful rhetoric or promotes violence against someone (Well just god but whether god is a someone is a tad subjective). In which case the situation should begin with them making a magazine and their audience reacting to it whether positively or negatively. You don't become a champion of free speech for making a cartoon, you become one when you are censored or attacked for it (although in this context it is important to note that hypothetical negative feedback from their readers does not count as censoring or attacking).

 

[Newkerzy]

Then my question is, does acting in the capacity of free speech include hateful rhetoric which also includes insulting a certain group of people and labeling them as war-mongering murderers upon which is only a small representative of that people, considered an exercise of that right as it was intended in the first place?

The way I see it, it can be seen that way from a certain point of view, but with how the situation has played out, the whole world has now condemned the Muslim community to shut up and mourn for people who has freely disrepected their community and praised, and the Muslim community is now forced to just stand by and do nothing.

Nobody deserves to be killed, that's a fact. But so does nobody has the right to freely insult others while blatantly, perfectly knowing how offensive it is to the people it is directed at. This is Trump-levels of ignorance at its best.

 

[kkck]

Then my question is, does acting in the capacity of free speech include hateful rhetoric which also includes insulting a certain group of people and labeling them as war-mongering murderers upon which is only a small representative of that people, considered an exercise of that right as it was intended in the first place?

The way I see it, it can be seen that way from a certain point of view, but with how the situation has played out, the whole world has now condemned the Muslim community to shut up and mourn for people who has freely disrepected their community and praised, and the Muslim community is now forced to just stand by and do nothing.

Nobody deserves to be killed, that's a fact. But so does nobody has the right to freely insult others while blatantly, perfectly knowing how offensive it is to the people it is directed at. This is Trump-levels of ignorance at its best.

Well, in most places there are laws against hateful rhetoric libel and such things. That said, I have my doubts about charlie heddo falling into this. I don't recall any cases of them labeling the muslim community as a whole as hateful terrorist for one thing. They have used depictions of Muhammad which is forbidden in Muslim faith however that does not mean it should be illegal for them to do so or that there should be retribution for it. Specially if you are not of muslim faith. Hebdo takes issue with god as a whole however IIRC they are actually very critical of the negative treatment muslims or immigrants in europe are receiving.

Freedom of speech, at least how I understand it, is not about whether you offend someone or something. As in, someone calling you out on being an asshole is not against free speech. It concerns being censored by the state or other organizations. With charlie hebdo the worst case scenario is that they are assholes. But at least as far as I have seen everything they have done is for the most part, well, tolerable. What should happen here is that they write a cartoon, someone gets offended, makes himself heard and that's the end of it. Terrorist attacked them and in the process made them way bigger than they were, at least temporarily. It's a situation very distinct from trump's because the guy has spoken in favor of not letting muslims into the country, treating all of them as terrorist and even concentration camps. In contrast hebdo has simply made Muhammad cartoons or depicted god as a murderer. Cringe-worthy? IMHO yes, but overall not something that should be illegal.

 

[xi0]

But so does nobody has the right to freely insult others while blatantly, perfectly knowing how offensive it is to the people it is directed at. This is Trump-levels of ignorance at its best.

So then what you're saying is that it shouldn't be legal for people to say or do ignorant things? The freedom of speech doesn't exist to allow people to be bigoted (or whatever in this case), it exists as a barrier between being able to speak freely and not. If we start outlawing speech that is insulting or offensive to some, then who judges such things? How would such a law be enforced? Doing such a thing would create 10x more problems than it solves. Being offended/insulted is never an excuse for the censorship of someone else.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 8, 2016 ---

It's a situation very distinct from trump's because the guy has spoken in favor of not letting muslims into the country, treating all of them as terrorist and even concentration camps.

Okay, I'm not a Trump supporter, but when did he say he would do it because he would treat all of them as terrorists or put them in concentration camps? I don't recall him ever going that far.

 

[kkck]

So then what you're saying is that it shouldn't be legal for people to say or do ignorant things? The freedom of speech doesn't exist to allow people to be bigoted (or whatever in this case), it exists as a barrier between being able to speak freely and not. If we start outlawing speech that is insulting or offensive to some, then who judges such things? How would such a law be enforced? Doing such a thing would create 10x more problems than it solves. Being offended/insulted is never an excuse for the censorship of someone else.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 8, 2016 ---

Okay, I'm not a Trump supporter, but when did he say he would do it because he would treat all of them as terrorists or put them in concentration camps? I don't recall him ever going that far.

Well, most first world countries actually have laws in place that effectively limit free speech. However they don't concern "offending" anyone. Offending anyone is not the issue. Take France for instance. They pretty much invented modern freedom of speech. And yet they have laws against inciting to discriminate based on sex, religion, race, ethnicity and so on. However in turn the actual standards to be prosecuted for this are very high. It's not like saying something like "muslims are assholes" would get you in trouble. I don't know the laws of every country but to varying degrees laws as this are the norm in what could be called first world countries (except the US).

Ahh, you are right about that. He said something about internment camps but now that I think about it I am not entirely clear on the details regarding that.... He has said the other stuff though which is bad enough.

 

[xi0]

And yet they have laws against inciting to discriminate based on sex, religion, race, ethnicity and so on

Inciting what? Violence? I never said discrimination was legal or should be, but there's a difference between something being considered "hate speech" because it incites people to do something illegal and censoring something for being "offensive". I doubt anyone can make a solid case that Charlie Hebdo is responsible for inciting anything against any group and should therefore be censored (at least, not from anything I've seen).

But of course, I understand that different countries have different tolerances, regardless of what they claim.