How in the name of feck does any of that suggest he's a white supremacist? 
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
How in the name of feck does any of that suggest he's a white supremacist?
I'm wondering that too, I'm not sure why a Jewish man would support white nationalism.
Especially a Jewish man who has spent his entire life standing up for the rights of minorities and oppressed people.
There are loads of Jews working for Breitbart and their UK editor is a British Asian Muslim yet they are labelled as white supremicists.
I think with Bernie he has been perceived (wrongly) to say something negative about black people. He is saying don't let identity politics corrupt the economic message if I understand correctly.
Nothing wrong with that. No one should be in a position just because of their gender/sexuality/race/whatever. "Don't lose sight of the job at hand".Don't know where to post this, but think it fits here too.
Slammed a lot on hillary's reddit as well.
For this apparently...
Skating on thin ice: Wife of Vladimir Putin's spokesman causes outrage with an astonishing HOLOCAUST-themed routine - including Star of David badges - on a Russian TV dancing show
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...esman-performs-holocaust-skating-routine.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...esman-performs-holocaust-skating-routine.html
Wow, them admitting it was an 'editorial error of judgement' was a bit of an understatement.
Moroccan state TV shows women how to hide domestic violence
Moroccan state TV shows women how to hide domestic violence
https://www.theguardian.com/society...-tv-shows-women-how-to-hide-domestic-violence
Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump
First time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts Steve - I need a safe space pronto :-(.
Check out how Bernie is being labelled a white supremacist or the university advice for thanksgiving and see how it is not a phantom enemy.......
Ah common sense.. The idea that because something sounds obvious it must be true.
By half a dozen people on twitter. That's the enemy? Really?
Tbh mate, I (mainly) posted it because, I assumed, it would be something to discuss for those interested in the thread.Common sense, rational thought, objectivity - they're all bywords for oppression now. Did you not get the memo?
Before you start championing him as some extraordinary rational thinker it's worth baring in mind he thinks non-whites don't do as well because of life choices.
You misunderstood, the enemy in that reference was Political correctness as in the topic of the thread. Not one example with the ridiculous assault on Bernie.
But every example ultimately winds up being half a dozen people on twitter. It's not a "ridiculous assault", it's half a dozen twits. You can't say the longstanding practice, which made is unacceptable to say you don't want a nigger for a neighbour, is an enemy when every example against either: A) has nothing to do with political correctness in the first place or B) is half a dozen people on twitter. You're only proving that article's point by taking it to such narrow points of reference that it loses any semblance to reality.
That's a great read, very well written and thoroughly researched. Thanks for sharing. The stuff on Trump is bang on the money.
As a candidate, Trump inaugurated a new phase of anti-political-correctness. What was remarkable was just how many different ways Trump deployed this tactic to his advantage, both exploiting the tried-and-tested methods of the early 1990s and adding his own innovations.
First, by talking incessantly about political correctness, Trump established the myth that he had dishonest and powerful enemies who wanted to prevent him from taking on the difficult challenges facing the nation. By claiming that he was being silenced, he created a drama in which he could play the hero. The notion that Trump was both persecuted and heroic was crucial to his emotional appeal. It allowed people who were struggling economically or angry about the way society was changing to see themselves in him, battling against a rigged system that made them feel powerless and devalued. At the same time, Trump’s swagger promised that they were strong and entitled to glory. They were great and would be great again.
Second, Trump did not simply criticise the idea of political correctness – he actually said and did the kind of outrageous things that PC culture supposedly prohibited. The first wave of conservative critics of political correctness claimed they were defending the status quo, but Trump’s mission was to destroy it. In 1991, when George HW Bush warned that political correctness was a threat to free speech, he did not choose to exercise his free speech rights by publicly mocking a man with a disability or characterising Mexican immigrants as rapists. Trump did. Having elevated the powers of PC to mythic status, the draft-dodging billionaire, son of a slumlord, taunted the parents of a fallen soldier and claimed that his cruelty and malice was, in fact, courage.
This willingness to be more outrageous than any previous candidate ensured non-stop media coverage, which in turn helped Trump attract supporters who agreed with what he was saying. We should not underestimate how many Trump supporters held views that were sexist, racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic, and were thrilled to feel that he had given them permission to say so. It’s an old trick: the powerful encourage the less powerful to vent their rage against those who might have been their allies, and to delude themselves into thinking that they have been liberated. It costs the powerful nothing; it pays frightful dividends.
Trump drew upon a classic element of anti-political-correctness by implying that while his opponents were operating according to a political agenda, he simply wanted to do what was sensible. He made numerous controversial policy proposals: deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, banning Muslims from entering the US, introducing stop-and-frisk policies that have been ruled unconstitutional. But by responding to critics with the accusation that they were simply being politically correct, Trump attempted to place these proposals beyond the realm of politics altogether. Something political is something that reasonable people might disagree about. By using the adjective as a put-down, Trump pretended that he was acting on truths so obvious that they lay beyond dispute. “That’s just common sense.”
The most alarming part of this approach is what it implies about Trump’s attitude to politics more broadly. His contempt for political correctness looks a lot like contempt for politics itself. He does not talk about diplomacy; he talks about “deals”. Debate and disagreement are central to politics, yet Trump has made clear that he has no time for these distractions. To play the anti-political-correctness card in response to a legitimate question about policy is to shut down discussion in much the same way that opponents of political correctness have long accused liberals and leftists of doing. It is a way of sidestepping debate by declaring that the topic is so trivial or so contrary to common sense that it is pointless to discuss it. The impulse is authoritarian. And by presenting himself as the champion of common sense, Trump gives himself permission to bypass politics altogether.
Now that he is president-elect, it is unclear whether Trump meant many of the things he said during his campaign. But, so far, he is fulfilling his pledge to fight political correctness. Last week, he told the New York Times that he was trying to build an administration filled with the “best people”, though “Not necessarily people that will be the most politically correct people, because that hasn’t been working.”
Trump has also continued to cry PC in response to criticism. When an interviewer from Politico asked a Trump transition team member why Trump was appointing so many lobbyists and political insiders, despite having pledged to “drain the swamp” of them, the source said that “one of the most refreshing parts of … the whole Trump style is that he does not care about political correctness.” Apparently it would have been politically correct to hold him to his campaign promises.
First, by talking incessantly about political correctness, Trump established the myth that he had dishonest and powerful enemies who wanted to prevent him from taking on the difficult challenges facing the nation. By claiming that he was being silenced, he created a drama in which he could play the hero. The notion that Trump was both persecuted and heroic was crucial to his emotional appeal. It allowed people who were struggling economically or angry about the way society was changing to see themselves in him, battling against a rigged system that made them feel powerless and devalued. At the same time, Trump’s swagger promised that they were strong and entitled to glory. They were great and would be great again.
Second, Trump did not simply criticise the idea of political correctness – he actually said and did the kind of outrageous things that PC culture supposedly prohibited. The first wave of conservative critics of political correctness claimed they were defending the status quo, but Trump’s mission was to destroy it. In 1991, when George HW Bush warned that political correctness was a threat to free speech, he did not choose to exercise his free speech rights by publicly mocking a man with a disability or characterising Mexican immigrants as rapists. Trump did. Having elevated the powers of PC to mythic status, the draft-dodging billionaire, son of a slumlord, taunted the parents of a fallen soldier and claimed that his cruelty and malice was, in fact, courage.
This willingness to be more outrageous than any previous candidate ensured non-stop media coverage, which in turn helped Trump attract supporters who agreed with what he was saying. We should not underestimate how many Trump supporters held views that were sexist, racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic, and were thrilled to feel that he had given them permission to say so. It’s an old trick: the powerful encourage the less powerful to vent their rage against those who might have been their allies, and to delude themselves into thinking that they have been liberated. It costs the powerful nothing; it pays frightful dividends.
Trump drew upon a classic element of anti-political-correctness by implying that while his opponents were operating according to a political agenda, he simply wanted to do what was sensible. He made numerous controversial policy proposals: deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, banning Muslims from entering the US, introducing stop-and-frisk policies that have been ruled unconstitutional. But by responding to critics with the accusation that they were simply being politically correct, Trump attempted to place these proposals beyond the realm of politics altogether. Something political is something that reasonable people might disagree about. By using the adjective as a put-down, Trump pretended that he was acting on truths so obvious that they lay beyond dispute. “That’s just common sense.”
The most alarming part of this approach is what it implies about Trump’s attitude to politics more broadly. His contempt for political correctness looks a lot like contempt for politics itself. He does not talk about diplomacy; he talks about “deals”. Debate and disagreement are central to politics, yet Trump has made clear that he has no time for these distractions. To play the anti-political-correctness card in response to a legitimate question about policy is to shut down discussion in much the same way that opponents of political correctness have long accused liberals and leftists of doing. It is a way of sidestepping debate by declaring that the topic is so trivial or so contrary to common sense that it is pointless to discuss it. The impulse is authoritarian. And by presenting himself as the champion of common sense, Trump gives himself permission to bypass politics altogether.
Now that he is president-elect, it is unclear whether Trump meant many of the things he said during his campaign. But, so far, he is fulfilling his pledge to fight political correctness. Last week, he told the New York Times that he was trying to build an administration filled with the “best people”, though “Not necessarily people that will be the most politically correct people, because that hasn’t been working.”
Trump has also continued to cry PC in response to criticism. When an interviewer from Politico asked a Trump transition team member why Trump was appointing so many lobbyists and political insiders, despite having pledged to “drain the swamp” of them, the source said that “one of the most refreshing parts of … the whole Trump style is that he does not care about political correctness.” Apparently it would have been politically correct to hold him to his campaign promises.
I liked this para too.
One important thing is not to paint with broad brush strokes. We can't label all Political Correctness as the enemy or bad or some liberal, hippy plot to bring down this or that. There are some very silly things that happen in the name of Political Correctness and nothing wrong with pointing them out. Just don't label all Political Correctness as bad because of the few that are really silly.
Fecking hell. You really think the economic disadvantages that are more predominant among PoC are down to "shit life choices"?
He thinks the same about women. Just don't call him a minsogynst, or a racist. Because that's PC gone mad, or something.
For those not quite in the loop, Ben Shapiro was the editor of a white supremacists website, Breitbart, which promotes misinformation for racists and mysogynists to quote. Such as "dropped out of school at 13, pregnant at 15", which you may be surprised to hear, is not prevalent behaviour.
I do wonder about this. Some Alt-right thinkers like Milo claim that the gender pay gap is a myth because it is measured by career earnings in total, though generally expressed by the left as women only earn 70p to the man's £1, for example. Therefore the gender pay gap is because women make different life choices, namely taking more time off work than men to look after children, which is is entirely natural if you believe what they teach you in A Level psychology. What is the lefts counter to that?
His name sounds Jewish, how does that work with a bunch of white supremacists, seems most I have ever read about don't like the Jews either.
(yes I am being a bit tongue in cheek with the whole his name sounds Jewish thing).
No need to attack a poster, counter the point. I thought it was frowned upon on this forum to keep attacking a poster?
This hatred of anything not inline with the left permeates through most of these discussions. I have always considered myself pretty hard left but i don't recognise this liberal turn.
Like the socialists opposition to the EU and Sam Harris's views on Islam there should be room for fair discussion.
Not jumping to name calling of the worst kind (Racist,sexist,bigot) it really is getting boring in every CE thread where politics crops ups.
So is all the racism, sexism and bigotry.
The likes of Milo wilfully misinterpret data to make it seem like maternity leave is going to make a massive difference - and even if was half the factor they claim it to be then the answer would be to extend paternity leave (which has it's own merits to begin with, so there's no need to argue it from that perspective). The truth is that women just get paid less in a lot of jobs and that's getting corrected with women making a fuss about it, and suing companies found to pay men more than they pay women for doing the same job.
There's also no need to be a racist, but hey-ho.
Shapiro left because he felt it was become too alt-right
"5. Under Bannon’s Leadership, Breitbart Openly Embraced The White Supremacist Alt-Right.Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it. He used to brag regularly about helping to integrate his fraternity at Tulane University. He insisted that racial stories be treated with special care to avoid even the whiff of racism. With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro#!
The context here being that African American birthrates have been on a steady decline as the for-profit school-prison pipeline. If you're wondering, black people didn't choose to be imprisoned at higher rates than whites for the same crime. So how African American women have reacted is by having fewer children altogether - and having them out of wedlock. It's not "a hell of a lot of shit life choices", it's a reaction to the pressure the community is under.
Where is the data?
The pay gap is measured on a per-job basis. I.E Male nurses being paid more than female nurses for the same amount of work.
I agree there should be no racism but i don't see any in the thread. You were calling a poster racist not saying racism exists which of course it does.
While the idea to extend paternity is very good one that I would agree with 100% the fact it is not means it is a relevant consideration.
As you say if it was then the data would change and show a reduced gap.
So it stands that it has an impact and skews current interpretations.
It is hard to define any pay gap between any person regardless of sex because many things need to be considered including the right for any company to try and get the best deal for itself in paying salaries.
They have a duty to shareholders to consider too who are both male and female.
If someone is offered a job at a salary it is up to them to accept or reject.
This need for equalisation of outcomes is skewed. We should be vying for equalisation of opportunity only, otherwise it will breed resentment as we are seeing play out around the western world.
Those are the figures you want to look for. Some are broader than that and include a mix of jobs that are not comparable.
He quotes white supremacists news outlets on matters of race. I'll happily continue to call anyone who does that a racist.
And when a company is found to be paying men more than women for the same job they are liable to being sued. There was a case in the UK a few years where female nurses won a big payout. While they will try to keep expenses low, they may be in breach of the law.
The body publishing the figures kind of suggests that it is partisan, no?
The questions that I have
Why is the median wage as opposed to average way the best way to measure the gap?
Are the wages as advertised or negotiated?
How is the gap affected by women taking more time away from work i.e. missing opportunities for promotion through less experience?
What are the top level of wages achieved by occupation and gender, is there data for that?
Thank our lucky stars that Fellani doesn't try to get Rooney's salary in that case.
That only applies to discrimination based on race/sex etc not across the board everyone has to earn the same wage.