Populist Correctness: The New PC Culture of Brexit & Trump

[San Toki]

But Obama isn't a muslim, is he? Beer drinking, pork eating, probably an atheist but identifies as a Christian. Those polled did not get flashed that picture and asked to make a snap judgment, this was in 2016 having known who Barack Obama is for years. And still think he's a muslim.

You're being disingenuous and you know it. Other than stupidity, or racism, why would anyone think obama is a muslim in 2016?

It's funny you're desperate to not have to deal with the idea the right wing has a significant amount of racists despite polling data and nasty vitriol to Obama, BLM, Muslims, Mexicans and other groups, but you're ignoring your "team" painting all liberals as violent rioters, despite this claim being blatantly absurd.

I dont know what he is. Do you? Is he a Muslim? Probably not, but he has done and said my things that I could see might raise questions in others who dont pay as much attention as I do. I'm not being disingenuous, and like I said you dont know what the fuck he is, nor do you. He is pictured wearing muslim garb when he was younger, and has done many, many things very questionable with regards to Islam and taking pot shots at Christianity on Christmas. So dont act like your a fucking expert on the subject and resort to just "racism or stupidity" comments. Its pretty fucking weak.

And for your last paragraph I have no idea what you are even saying. You have no concept of whether the right has racists or not. You think that vitriol towards the worst race baiting president, BLM (a terrorist organization at this point) and illegal mexicans counts a racist. You are acting like a typical progressive and labeling people terrible names when they dont agree with your philosophy
Dont like Obama? MUST BE A RACIST
Dont think black people are still oppressed? MUST BE A RACIST
Christ, get a new shtick. Your labeling is THE EXACT REASON PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP. Because they are tired of being labeled terrible things just because they disagree. Good job.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Back in 2008 here were people who genuinely believed that America had elected the actual anti-Christ in Obama. Yet even those wackos took it better than these dickheads we see now reacting to Trump. The idea that conservatives/right-wingers/Republicans are just as bad as this anti-Trump crowd is complete bullshit.

 

[FIMN]

I dont know what he is. Do you? Is he a Muslim? Probably not, but he has done and said my things that I could see might raise questions in others who dont pay as much attention as I do. I'm not being disingenuous, and like I said you dont know what the fuck he is, nor do you. He is pictured wearing muslim garb when he was younger, and has done many, many things very questionable with regards to Islam and taking pot shots at Christianity on Christmas. So dont act like your a fucking expert on the subject and resort to just "racism or stupidity" comments. Its pretty fucking weak.

And for your last paragraph I have no idea what you are even saying. You have no concept of whether the right has racists or not. You think that vitriol towards the worst race baiting president, BLM (a terrorist organization at this point) and illegal mexicans counts a racist. You are acting like a typical progressive and labeling people terrible names when they dont agree with your philosophy
Dont like Obama? MUST BE A RACIST
Dont think black people are still oppressed? MUST BE A RACIST
Christ, get a new shtick. Your labeling is THE EXACT REASON PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP. Because they are tired of being labeled terrible things just because they disagree. Good job.

I didn't say they must be a racist. In fact I stated the exact opposite, multiple times in this thread. It could be stupidity. My entire point in this thread, from the first page until this one, is that painting political opponents with broad strokes is not helpful and lower the tone of the debate.

I used the fact two thirds of trump supporters believing obama is a muslim is indicative that there is a significant number who are likely to be racist or bigoted. I don't think that's an unfair characterisation. It would be the height of ignorance to say there none of the 60% are racist.... so what % is it?

By your standards, thinking any western mainstream politician COULD be a muslim. Strange it's just the one brown guy who has spent the last 8 years as president, drinks beer, eats pork and drones other Muslims who raises suspicion. I'm sure those trump supporters polled saw 20+ year old pictures and have real rational, non bigoted reasons to think the guy is a secret muslim. But it's definitely NOT racism. Can't possibly be.

I was talking about the vitriol towards those groups, which shows that there are at least some racists on that wing. Is that too hard to admit?

Your BLM terrorist comment shows you are at the height of partinsanship, again an absurd characterisation. What % of BLM supporters have committed terrorist attacks? 0.001%? Wow. So prolific.

 

[Bald1]

Using polls is about as far away as an absurd characterisation as you can get. It just needs to be taken in proper context.

Sure, context is good. That's why I asked about the reliability of the source. The opinion ranges from utterly useless, the general concensus, to a B+ rating on Wiki, which happens to be open to editing by folks of questionable motives.

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and skewed polls.

 

[oldshadow]

This is then new "how dare you fight back you racist" from the left.

There is a difference in fighting back and calling out bull shit and crying for safe spaces where people can't hurt you feelings.

Anyone can say what they want just don't expect others not to call out your bull shit.

If you call someone a Nazi and people tell you how stupid you are it's not crying, it calling out bull shit. If they tell you you can't say that and we want to make laws preventing it then you have a right to complain and I'll complain with you.

 

[FIMN]

Sure, context is good. That's why I asked about the reliability of the source. The opinion ranges from utterly useless, the general concensus, to a B+ rating on Wiki, which happens to be open to editing by folks of questionable motives.

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and skewed polls.

It beats the utter conjecture and ludicrous claims made about "liberals" in this thread though. It's actually based on data and sampling rather than absurd characterisations of millions of people because of what you read on Breitbart.

 

[Bald1]

It beats the utter conjecture and ludicrous claims made about "liberals" in this thread though. It's actually based on data and sampling rather than absurd characterisations of millions of people because of what you read on Breitbart.

Both sides use ridiculous broad brush tactics. Painting "liberals" as intolerant violent people not interested in discourse has more observable basis in reality as seen at every rally and protest, than a poll with unknown methodology.

Besides, "they" seem to be the more hypocritical of the two sides when abandoning the core beliefs of tolerance and exchange of ideas in favour of opressing those "they" disagree with.

When the good guys start using bad guy tactics are they still the good guys?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Not reading that but I think that it is generally a normal thing for an extreme to produce another extreme.

The West pushed the PC narrative way too far, and now there is a pushback, in which people don t care about being called racists anymore because the word just lost its meaning.

Lastly about the snowflakes : I disagree. Imagine if someone starts screaming, rolling on the floor and making a scene, and you tell that persone to stfu and stop being annoying, would you equate that to two persons bitching at each other? No. Because calling out a bitch doesn t make you a bitch.

 

[FIMN]

Both sides use ridiculous broad brush tactics. Painting "liberals" as intolerant violent people not interested in discourse has more observable basis in reality as seen at every rally and protest, than a poll with unknown methodology.

Besides, "they" seem to be the more hypocritical of the two sides when abandoning the core beliefs of tolerance and exchange of ideas in favour of opressing those "they" disagree with.

When the good guys start using bad guy tactics are they still the good guys?

My understanding was that the women's protest and inauguration protests took place across the country in almost every major city/state, most of which were completely non violent? Is that not correct? Even the Berkeley riots were causez by antifa, who couldn't really be described as liberal, but rather radical anarchist/socialist.

Observable events are subject to confirmation bias, seeing only what you want to see. Polls, provided they are designed well and have representative samples, are a much better indicator about people's views.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Trump isn't any more radical than any other President, you just categorize him that way.

i shouldnt have used the word radical. it has a pejorative connotation, but i didnt mean it that way necessarily. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM. because he's a huge break with the status quo (allegedly). leave nato? ban entrance of a specific religion? leave the UN? building a great wall?

even if those are good ideas, theyre FAR different than any other candidate we've had in modern history. obama is painted as some sort of communist by the fring right....but he wouldnt even go after single payer healthcare. shit commie lol.

That's your right, but I don't agree with your position. Let's be honest, even if Trump were some kind of radical, it doesn't give those on the left a free pass to beat, burn and destroy.

no shit, and 99% of them arent doing those things.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Poster said "Liberal speakers aren't getting their lectures shut down by mob violence. Liberals are burning cars and beating people up in the street without consequence. What conservatives do you see doing similar things? Where was all of the violence in 2008 when Obama got elected? I'll concede that I can't remember every event that ever happened, but I don't recall any rioting."

That's a dodge. Where you don't directly answer the posters point, instead point to the "vast number of women's protests that have been peaceful" Still not explaining why the modern left speakers aren't having their lectures shut down by conservatives, which happens all the time to Milo and other I might add.

it wasnt a dodge lol. i was attempting to explain away what he was describing.

when you get that many people protesting of any flavor, some of them are inevitably going to be shitheads.

trump's rallies were shut down or harassed a few times. that was wrong, but trump supporters should be pleased about that. it likely got him elected. milo was likely salivating at the prospect of speaking at one of the most well known liberal shit storming campuses in america. he knew what was going to happen the whole time. berkeley claims btw, that students were not the violent ones.

 

[Neil'sMagny]

i shouldnt have used the word radical. it has a pejorative connotation, but i didnt mean it that way necessarily. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM. because he's a huge break with the status quo (allegedly). leave nato? ban entrance of a specific religion? leave the UN? building a great wall?

even if those are good ideas, theyre FAR different than any other candidate we've had in modern history. obama is painted as some sort of communist by the fring right....but he wouldnt even go after single payer healthcare. shit commie lol.



no shit, and 99% of them arent doing those things.

I never made the claim, otherwise, so I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. Let me take a different approach.

I didn't start this thread, only replied in it. The thread starter sets the parameters for discussion within each individual thread. The thread starter didn't specifically state how many alt-righters were trying to silence the left, he/she just said that alt-righters were doing it. The TS was speaking, generally, and I was okay with that, because we're all adults and I assumed that TS wasn't talking about all conservatives, just those with the extreme views he was highlighting. I was giving him the benefit, and tried to reply accordingly.

I even gave four or five different examples of it happening to conservatives in my first post. That was the perfect opportunity for you to counter with links and examples of the alt-right stopping the left's ability to gather and speak. Instead, you chose to harp on percentages. I'm not going to start out every one of my posts with, "I'm not speaking about all conservatives/liberals, but there are some who do..." We can all be adults and talk about issues without having to consider the percentage of perpetrators within any given group.

 

[San Toki]

it wasnt a dodge lol. i was attempting to explain away what he was describing.

when you get that many people protesting of any flavor, some of them are inevitably going to be shitheads.

trump's rallies were shut down or harassed a few times. that was wrong, but trump supporters should be pleased about that. it likely got him elected. milo was likely salivating at the prospect of speaking at one of the most well known liberal shit storming campuses in america. he knew what was going to happen the whole time. berkeley claims btw, that students were not the violent ones.

I dont see a great upside to shutting down the rallies. Its pretty scary to think that people are ok with shutting down the opinions of others simply because they dont want to listen or for others to listen. Besides, Trump would have been elected regardless

 

[San Toki]

I didn't say they must be a racist. In fact I stated the exact opposite, multiple times in this thread. It could be stupidity. My entire point in this thread, from the first page until this one, is that painting political opponents with broad strokes is not helpful and lower the tone of the debate.

I used the fact two thirds of trump supporters believing obama is a muslim is indicative that there is a significant number who are likely to be racist or bigoted. I don't think that's an unfair characterisation. It would be the height of ignorance to say there none of the 60% are racist.... so what % is it?

By your standards, thinking any western mainstream politician COULD be a muslim. Strange it's just the one brown guy who has spent the last 8 years as president, drinks beer, eats pork and drones other Muslims who raises suspicion. I'm sure those trump supporters polled saw 20+ year old pictures and have real rational, non bigoted reasons to think the guy is a secret muslim. But it's definitely NOT racism. Can't possibly be.

I was talking about the vitriol towards those groups, which shows that there are at least some racists on that wing. Is that too hard to admit?

Your BLM terrorist comment shows you are at the height of partinsanship, again an absurd characterisation. What % of BLM supporters have committed terrorist attacks? 0.001%? Wow. So prolific.

This is gonna go nowhere with you. Yeah obviously there will be SOME racists anywhere you go or any side. But your tactic is what one would call "poisoning the well". If there are racists, they are a minority, but by focusing in on that minority you are poisoning any purposeful conversation and only attempting to put conservatives on the defensive.

I mean, what point does it make to say that some white people on Trumps side are racist? Are they a majority? No. Do they represent me or Trump? No. So who gives a fuck? Again, poisoning any productive conversation. Any any dumb 18 year twitter addicted liberal comes along and will buy that shit since they heard someone who sounds smart saying it.

Thats your tactic. Good fucking job.

And my calling BLM is not partisanship, its observing how their own fucking leaders spew about white genocide and cop killing> I can provide dozens of examples if you want. Oh, and how about the Dallas cop killings? Who was that again? What about their chant to kill cops at any rally? Huh? What do you have to say about that? 'Pigs in a Blanket, Fry 'Em Like Bacon'!!!!

 

[7437]

Both sides use ridiculous broad brush tactics. Painting "liberals" as intolerant violent people not interested in discourse has more observable basis in reality as seen at every rally and protest, than a poll with unknown methodology.

Besides, "they" seem to be the more hypocritical of the two sides when abandoning the core beliefs of tolerance and exchange of ideas in favour of opressing those "they" disagree with.

When the good guys start using bad guy tactics are they still the good guys?

Anecdotes are more reliable than a scientific poll now.

Alternative facts are better than real facts. Welcome to 2017

 

[Bald1]

Anecdotes are more reliable than a scientific poll now.

Alternative facts are better than real facts. Welcome to 2017

I did some digging into the reliability of this particular polling institution. The only positive rating they have is on Wiki.

I'm not coming at this from a Trump supporter point of view, because I'm not one. I'm looking at this as a skeptic who was told polls showed Clinton was 90% likely to win by "scientific polls". Data, language and methodology are getting skewed, and screwed, by agenda driven people all the time.

 

[Sketch]

Throwing tomatoes at an unwilling participant at a political rally is assault by the way. So he is asking his audience to to knock someone out if they see someone about to commit a crime against him. Thats a pretty easy one dude. That doesn't count as inciting violence. Next one?

The tomato accounts for a lot more than you are giving it credit for, especially with your own personal view of discrediting what the tomato stands for. He is inciting violence, it's obvious, and he's even offering additional support in the form of paying for legal fees. He is leveraging serious crimes against people who have the right to protest him.

 

[IHATECONSERVATIVES]

THIS IS WHAT ALL CONSERVATIVES WANT.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

After Brexit nothing changed, the laws are the same as before, you will still get charged for saying anything critical of Muslims/Islam/Immigration.

UK is very much left despite voting for Brexit, by that I mean the government, laws and media are the same as before.

brexit hasnt happened yet, thats why nothing has changed

 

[MayhemMonkey]

UK has those hate speech laws that US doesn't.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-work-offending-muslims-police-facebook-page/

US > UK

just because the UK has hate speech laws, it doesnt mean islam cant be criticised