Divisiveness is now...good?

[HomerThompson]

People argue their case like adults all of the time, the problem is that some people don't like the arguments that are being made. Argue your case like an adult...but you can't use the following arguments: X, Y, Z. Well, if they can't use Arguments X, Y, Z then it seems like they're being asked to abide by some unspoken PC code.

You posted a wonderful diatribe but it completely sidestepped my point.

Only one side has an issue with PC speech. The side that is against PC speech shouldn't have a problem with the race card or with calling people Nazie regularly. They shouldn't have a problem with any language used in the public space. Asking any group to change how they about any subject is asking them to be PC.

A person cannot be against society becoming too PC and also upset about society's use of language directed against their preferred group.

Here's a simple example to help you stay on track. "Muslims are terrorists and can't be trusted." says Person X. When told that the statement is xenophobic, Person X says that it's the truth and the PC police are going overboard. When Person Y calls Person X a "racist", Person X says "Why do you call everyone racist, you shouldn't speak that way."

Person X doesn't see that the request for less volatile language contradicts the previous desire to express volatile language. Person X abhors the PC code when it restricts Person X's speech but implicitly appeals to it when the speech is directed at Person X.

That is the point that I am making.

The rightwing "free speech" brigade perfectly explained.

 

[Fawlty]

Who specifically are these people you’re referring to?

It's a general commentary and something we should all consider, but the subject is the majority of conservative and far-right opinion, which viewed Obama's divisiveness as unacceptable, yet embraces the divisiveness of today.

I chose it because it's by far the clearest example of partisan hypocrisy that has grown from normal to absurd.

 

[HereticBD]

Let me guess you were still in mommy's womb when Clinton was President? Too young to remember when the Republicans would constantly claim he didn't have the right to this or say that because he didn't get a majority of the vote?

What in the holy blue fuck are you talking about? Clinton won the popular vote in both of his elections.

 

[Letssnuggle]

It's a general commentary and something we should all consider, but the subject is the majority of conservative and far-right opinion, which viewed Obama's divisiveness as unacceptable, yet embraces the divisiveness of today.

I chose it because it's by far the clearest example of partisan hypocrisy that has grown from normal to absurd.

Hypocrisy of people you can’t name?

 

[Fawlty]

What in the holy blue fuck are you talking about? Clinton won the popular vote in both of his elections.

That was the year that we had Ross Perot, a strong third-party candidate, who split the vote so that nobody got a majority.

 

[58miles]

What in the holy blue fuck are you talking about? Clinton won the popular vote in both of his elections.

He didn't win over 50% of the vote in either election, sorry if I didn't make that clear

 

[HomerThompson]

What in the holy blue fuck are you talking about? Clinton won the popular vote in both of his elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority

 

[Fawlty]

Hypocrisy of people you can’t name?

?

Are you unaware that the political right had a problem with Obama's divisiveness? And then, are you unaware of the current levels of division? If you're aware of those things, then you either support or reject the current divisiveness of the administration. I can't walk you through this all the way into your brain, my reach halts at your computer screen.

 

[HereticBD]

That was the year that we had Ross Perot, a strong third-party candidate, who split the vote so that nobody got a majority.

Oh', I see. I thought he was claiming he lost the pop vote. My mistake. Carry on.

 

[Kindacrazy]

People argue their case like adults all of the time, the problem is that some people don't like the arguments that are being made. Argue your case like an adult...but you can't use the following arguments: X, Y, Z. Well, if they can't use Arguments X, Y, Z then it seems like they're being asked to abide by some unspoken PC code.

You posted a wonderful diatribe but it completely sidestepped my point.

Only one side has an issue with PC speech. The side that is against PC speech shouldn't have a problem with the race card or with calling people Nazie regularly. They shouldn't have a problem with any language used in the public space. Asking any group to change how they about any subject is asking them to be PC.

A person cannot be against society becoming too PC and also upset about society's use of language directed against their preferred group.

Here's a simple example to help you stay on track. "Muslims are terrorists and can't be trusted." says Person X. When told that the statement is xenophobic, Person X says that it's the truth and the PC police are going overboard. When Person Y calls Person X a "racist", Person X says "Why do you call everyone racist, you shouldn't speak that way."

Person X doesn't see that the request for less volatile language contradicts the previous desire to express volatile language. Person X abhors the PC code when it restricts Person X's speech but implicitly appeals to it when the speech is directed at Person X.

That is the point that I am making.

Bullshit. There are tons of people on the left who have an issue with PC speech. The vast majority of the country has a problem with PC speech. But it isn't the PC speech codes that are the issue, its the punishment and the methods used by the PC police to attack people who break the speech codes and the formalization of speech codes in law and by law. When professors can no longer say things that are scientific fact because its against the speech codes there is a problem.

You can whine and bitch to your hearts content about someone saying something racist or mean. I don't care and will just ignore you, but if you try to get violent, or attack someones ability to earn a living then that is not about what you think should be inside or outside the Overton window. That turns into an attack on someones ability to live and survive.

Using your own example, telling someone they are xenophobic for saying, "Muslims are terrorists and can't be trusted" is fine. Its essentially devoid of meaning, but go ahead and say it. But if you go to someones boss and tell them they are xenophobic and racist and that if they don't fire you right now you are going to start a boycott then that isn't about speech any longer.

There are definitely people acting hypocritical here, but its not the people against speech codes. Its the group that tried to change the definition of racism to include a power component so they didn't have to address specific racist remarks and structures that they knew were common. Hypocrisy from the SJW brigade is all over the place, they are such a hypocritical group that they have acted in serious and direct ways to downplay or hide their hypocrisy. The racist girl from the NYT, the feminist professor from NYU, the, "there won't be peace until a great deal of white blood has been spilt" professor from Texas A&M, the "when are we going to admit that college age white males are a problem population" professor from Boston, etc.

There is simply no equivalent from the right on these issues, none. If a professor said the same thing about any other group, they would be fired and their professional lives would effectively be over. That isn't justice or fairness, that is an angry bigoted mob and that is what SJWs are.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Oh, Homer..... hahaha

 

[Losfer Words]

The 1828 election which ushered in the modern two party system was literally based on divisiveness. Newspapers were making crazy claims about their respective opponents. Adams was called a pimp who used an American girl for the sole pleasure of the Russian Czar. Jackson's wife was called a whore. Jackson didn't make the customary call to the outgoing POTUS (Adams) and Adams did not attend the inauguration.

Not much has changed except technology.

 

[Fawlty]

The 1828 election which ushered in the modern two party system was literally based on divisiveness. Newspapers were making crazy claims about their respective opponents. Adams was called a pimp who used an American girl for the sole pleasure of the Russian Czar. Jackson's wife was called a whore. Jackson didn't make the customary call to the outgoing POTUS (Adams) and Adams did not attend the inauguration.

Not much has changed except technology.

I don't think campaign mud-slinging on its own is a good measure of national division, I think it's just a good measure of campaign tactics. But I like that you pointed out how nasty elections have always been- they're cleaner now than back then, in terms of slander.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

We've turned into a nation of dicks who are proud to be dicks because their leader is a dick.

 

[Kindacrazy]

There are some outright lies in this post (Garland being a nutcase, only CNN people think Trump is divisive).

But you did say a couple interesting things, and I agree with you about the Obama Justice Department's attempts at creating a better environment for civil rights being done with good intentions, yet ultimately becoming a source of division. I think that's a good place to draw a distinction between the Obama and Trump admins. Trump has been rather openly hostile from the start, encouraging violence against political opponents, and declaring the press an enemy being the clearest examples we could use. Embracing divisiveness.

Garland is a nutcase when it comes to the 2nd amendment. He is a complete and utter radical on the subject. The media has been only hostile to Trump from the beginning, smearing him every chance they have gotten. Probably half of what has been reported on him by the mainstream media is at least badly misrepresentation, if not an outright lie. the Russian investigation has been the worst smear job in US political history.

The Eric Holder Justice department was only racist and hostile. They attacked anything that they viewed as "imbalanced", with balance being that arrests and persecutions should statistically match representative groups. Nobody with a brain and even a marginal knowledge of criminology could think this was a good idea. He threatened literally hundreds of institutions with leveling accusations of their "racism" based on nothing at all. I seriously doubt you are aware of a fraction of the the shitty things done by the Obama Justice department.

When has Trump ever encouraged violence against political opponents, not saying it didn't happen but I am unaware of this. I know he has called for peace many times.

 

[Kindacrazy]

We've turned into a nation of dicks who are proud to be dicks because their leader is a dick.

Actually just the opposite. We have turned into a country of bleeding vagina's who seem to have completely lost the ability to not break down and cry because of something mean someone said. I seriously doubt there has ever been any society anywhere that has been this effeminate.

 

[58miles]

Garland is a nutcase when it comes to the 2nd amendment. He is a complete and utter radical on the subject. The media has been only hostile to Trump from the beginning, smearing him every chance they have gotten. Probably half of what has been reported on him by the mainstream media is at least badly misrepresentation, if not an outright lie. the Russian investigation has been the worst smear job in US political history.

The Eric Holder Justice department was only racist and hostile. They attacked anything that they viewed as "imbalanced", with balance being that arrests and persecutions should statistically match representative groups. Nobody with a brain and even a marginal knowledge of criminology could think this was a good idea. He threatened literally hundreds of institutions with leveling accusations of their "racism" based on nothing at all. I seriously doubt you are aware of a fraction of the the shitty things done by the Obama Justice department.

When has Trump ever encouraged violence against political opponents, not saying it didn't happen but I am unaware of this. I know he has called for peace many times.

Garland is a nutcase on the 2nd amendment? Is that why Republican Senator Orrin Hatch suggested that Obama choose him for the Supreme Court? Is that why he hinted that he was the type of nominee he could definitely vote for?

 

[TheComebackKid]

Garland is a nutcase when it comes to the 2nd amendment. He is a complete and utter radical on the subject. The media has been only hostile to Trump from the beginning, smearing him every chance they have gotten. Probably half of what has been reported on him by the mainstream media is at least badly misrepresentation, if not an outright lie. the Russian investigation has been the worst smear job in US political history.

The Eric Holder Justice department was only racist and hostile. They attacked anything that they viewed as "imbalanced", with balance being that arrests and persecutions should statistically match representative groups. Nobody with a brain and even a marginal knowledge of criminology could think this was a good idea. He threatened literally hundreds of institutions with leveling accusations of their "racism" based on nothing at all. I seriously doubt you are aware of a fraction of the the shitty things done by the Obama Justice department.

When has Trump ever encouraged violence against political opponents, not saying it didn't happen but I am unaware of this. I know he has called for peace many times.

The one time Trump said he'd pay the bail for someone who punched an agitator in response to their agitation.

According to the left this is equivalent to Antifa pelting people with eggs and bricks at campaign rallies.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

I want them under my boot now.

Fuck you.

 

[HomerThompson]

Fuck you.

Sorry, I don't fuck trash.