Looks like IT covered in brownies.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
".....Mr. Brown, the former Republican senator from Massachusetts, told Fairfax Media that he had been instructed to be more culturally aware after the July trip in which he called guests at a Peace Corps event in Samoa in July “beautiful,” and told a woman serving food and drink at the function that she could “make hundreds of dollars” as a waitress in the United States.
But he suggested his comments had been misinterpreted and that complaints about them had been politically motivated."
Yeah, the trend seems to be to interpret someones action or words in the worst way possible and then go into a moralizing frenzy. The thing that grinds my gear the most though is that this twitter mob won't think twice about for example getting someone sacked or ruin their marriage in their indignant rage
It seems to be a case of "better safe than sorry" after a few professional victims took it upon themselves to be offended, but she has literally nothing to apologize for. This is one of those cases where the term "PC gone too far" applies. If painting your face black draws accusations of doing blackface, regardless of context, the people doing the accusing need to take a step back and reassess their priorities.
Wasn't there some movie a while back where two black guys painted their faces white and posed as white girls? Not saying there should be outrage, just that it can be done and the sky doesn't cave in.
White Chicks. I don't remember much of it (saw it after it came out on DVD back in 2005 or something), aside from Marlon and Shawn Wayans looking horrendous as white women. And Terry Crews being hilarious.
Ah, yeah I haven't seen it so can't say comment on how well it was done. I do wonder how the same movie would do now, 13 years is a long time in PC land.
This probably fits here as well as the Brexit thread, as it's often about policing thought.
Even the wording of the correction is poor. It says they are recommendations, not proposals, ie it could be on the agenda, then the last line says they aren't
Even the wording of the correction is poor. It says they are recommendations, not proposals, ie it could be on the agenda, then the last line says they aren't
And also still referring to a white person is an 'author' and a black person a 'writer', and ran with a cartoon satirising the news they invented today, and have published a follow up article including reference to the article they've 'apologised' for, and are still misreporting the story in their correction.
I really wouldn't read to much into that, you try and avoiding using the same word twice in a sentence and I see them as interchangeable.
Yeah, I had to read it twice. Bit weird.Even the wording of the correction is poor. It says they are recommendations, not proposals, ie it could be on the agenda, then the last line says they aren't
Absolutely. Although, no doubt, twitter is full of people taking all sorts of offence over their choice of wording.
Of course thats true, but the wording is the same in the original story, the correction, and is followed even when the other word is not present in the sentence e.g. in the original article.
It seems to be pretty clear that the preference is to call black people 'writers' and white people 'authors'. I'm not implying that that is a conscious decision, but I would say it's a pretty obvious example of subconscious bias.
I also fundamentally disagree that both words have exactly the same connotations.
As I say, one time? Fine. When you do it every time including when the other word isn't in the sentence? It's hard to believe it's a pure coincidence.
Last edited:
Not a great surprise tbh. Clearly as the white authors are mentioned first, the black ones get the synonym.
I'd judge them to be interchangeable and a way to avoid repetition, just as we use CEO, boss and chief interchangeably. In the second sentence says 'replace white authors with black ones [ie authors]'
Also,"white writers" is a bit of a tongue-twister. Try saying it 6 times quickly!
That is true- save alliteration for the headlines.
Even in that example where black author is 'used', the word is never actually used, and 'black writer' appears in the second paragraph of the original article without any need to avoid
repetition.
That is not to say that I have any issue with writer being used as a descriptor, but I do not agree that the two words are completely synonymous. To me, and you may not agree with these definitions, 'writer' is much more workmanlike; a writer is someone who writes. An author is, of course, a writer, but it also contains connotations of the creative process involved in writing. A historian is a writer, but we'd probably call them a historian first. A journalist is a writer, but we'd probably call them a journalist first. All of these word choices reflect that there is more than simply writing in the process of producing the thing that has been written. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to call an author a writer, but that if the instinctive reaction is to think of a white person as an 'author' and a black person as a 'writer' then that says something about our perceptions.
I find it similar to the language people often use to describe black footballers. All footballers are, of course, athletes, but if you refer exclusively, or even more regularly, to black footballers as athletes rather than footballers its hard not to see that as a implicit rejection of the technical ability of the black footballer.
Which, again, isn't to say that I think this is done deliberately. Just that word choices reflect subconsciously held beliefs and can serve to perpetuate those beliefs.
But 'black authors' isn't, so whats the excuse there?
Last edited:
I've not read the original article tbh. It looks like we disagree on this, but I'd describe George Orwell, a personal favourite, meaning it as a compliment as I enjoy his writing style.
You could argue author is more catch-all, as it includes the likes of Katie Price, who I wouldn't deem a writer. Maybe there is some sub-conscious bias in the writer's mind, but I wouldn't say this is necessarily evidence of it.
The football example I'm not sure about. I get what you mean, obviously, eg the old 'Drogba-like' analogy for a big strong black forward, but back in the day it was 'Mark Hughes or Mick Harford-like'. Plus I don't think anyone disregards Drogba's technical ability, he was an exceptional player. I guess lazy commentators like easy comparisons.
There is none. They’re just trying to mix up the use of the two words by using “writer” for one group and “authors” for the other. The clumsy alliteration of “white writer” influenced their choice. That’s my assumption anyway. Which seems more likely than them being somehow racist.
Last edited:
There is none. They’re just trying to mix up the use of the two words by using “writer” for one group and “authors” for the other. The clumsy alliteration of “white writer” influenced their choice.[/QUOTE]
They're not 'mixing up' though. They're consistently using one word to refer to one group and one word to another even in sentences where the other word doesn't appear. Whatever value you place on the terms, their calling white authors 'authors' and black authors 'writers' differentiates the two groups and implies a difference.
Although I can understand why you might be inclined to give the author/journalist/writer the benefit of the doubt, in an incredibly problematic article I'm not sure why we would assume that the reason is purely linguistic preference and not an example of the same world view that led to the bollocks article in the first place?
People complaining about that costume are being a bit pedantic with the term "black face"
Now I'm getting confused over what all the fuss was about in the first place.
The only copy of the original article I can find online starts off with the following:
The rest of it is behind a paywall. As far as I can see that's a reasonable representation of the open letter which kicked things off.
The tweet above has a different headline. Has the article been rewritten since?
The one thing that I think is disgusting here is the way the girl who wrote that open letter has apparently been the subject of horrific online abuse from assorted scumbags wound up by the DT (and whatever other papers covered the same story) Gotta love social media, eh? The way they've stuck a biggish photo of the girl in question as the main image associated with the story is also kind of creepy. You get the sense that if she wasn't so attractive that photo would never have been used.
They're black authors in this piece, so it isn't a house style thing.
10 BAME authors who should be on every reading list
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/10-bame-authors-should-every-reading-list/
10 BAME authors who should be on every reading list
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/10-bame-authors-should-every-reading-list/
Isn't it the case that an author is someone who's actually had their writing published?
1: The byline is wrong, the open letter doesn't call for white authors to be replaced (in fact it specifically addresses that complaint):
2: The article is wrong, CUE staff discussed the letter and the topic at a teaching forum, but this body does not 'propose'. This is the bulk of the correction as they now claim this body made 'recommendations', but they're still misrepresenting what the teaching forum is and what they do.
3: The 'article' was actually a front page spread with picture of the girl and (incorrect) claim that 'student forces university to drop white authors', the picture was taken without her permission and used with an quote that misrepresented what she said.
4: In the same issue as the correction they posted a cartoon based on their incorrect reporting.
5: In the same issue as the correction they posted a follow up article making the same claim as the original.
6: The article is still available online without correction
7: The article misrepresents how universities work, and how modules are organised.
There's some basic points, but in that light I find it hard to believe that the black writers/white authors thing is an innocent way of avoiding repetition rather than a reflection of the same mindset that saw this open letter represented in the way it was in the Telegraph.
As a general point, this debate is one that is happening in all fields at the minute including mine. It's a valuable and important debate about what is considered essential (Literary scholars would call this the canon), how we teach that material, and how this has been influenced and shaped by the attitude of those that have gone before us. Misrepresenting that as an attack on white people is dishonest, dangerous, and downright horseshit.
I didn't say it was a house style to refer to authors in that way. I just think it likely reflects the attitudes that saw this letter framed in the way it was in the Telegraph rather than an innocent way of avoiding repetition.
Isn't the byline just the bit where they say who wrote their article? Do you mean headline? Because I can see a headline in the above tweet that is wrong but it's different to what is on the Telegraph website. Although I'm guessing that's been altered since this all kicked off. Would be interested in seeing the original because I'm struggling to see how anyone could take issue with what's up there now? The bit that's this side of the paywall anyway.
The cartoon you refers to also has a go at the Tories sticking their noses into universities re Brexit, so they're taking the piss out of both ends of the political spectrum. Which is something I can get behind. Re the article, other than the headline in the tweet higher up the page, I honestly don't see how they misrepresent what is going on at all (see above) but again, I would really need to see what was first published in case it's radically different to what's up there now.
Re authors/writers, the open letter from the students which kicked this off only ever uses the word "writers" in the context of non-white people and only ever describes white writers as authors". Make of that what you will. Admittedly it uses authors for both white and non-white people but you can see how an inconsistency like that can creep into a relatively short piece without any malign intentions.
My general beef with all of this is that there's enough shitty things going on in the world that I don't think it helps anyone to look for perceived slights where none might be intended. Focus on the obvious stuff and ignore the trivial. Otherwise you're just reinforcing the "snowflake" crap that undermines so many legitimate protests.
Yeah my bad, I meant the subheading but even thats wrong because I used what you'd copied rather than double checking, my bad. I was talking about the first line of the article, which is still up:
That statement is still completely false despite the correction.
Sure, but they're still criticising students for wanting to remove 'Dead White Authors' which isn't what they're asking for and is entirely based off of lies they printed themselves.
Other than the fact that the article says in literally the first line that they could replace white authors with black ones. I mean we could interpret 'could' here to mean 'are not going to and have not been asked to', but then why publish the article in the first place?
Only if you assume that everyone who is either female or writing postcolonial theory are non-white. I'm not sure that the reference to 'the writing of white men' should be ignored here.
Well I did, it was your and Jippy's replies to that part of my original post that started this discussion.
I just don't think we should be so quick to give the benefit of the doubt to a newspaper and author that went with this story and splashed it over their front page in the way they did. Again, I'm not saying it was a deliberate choice. Just that it is indicative of the biases held by the author.
Last edited:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evbpkn/twitter-suspended-me-for-trolling-white-supremacists
It's hilarious that enough people actually took that tweet seriously. And now it's being repeated and they're taking it seriously, eveywhere:
Replies are all on these lines:
It's hilarious that enough people actually took that tweet seriously. And now it's being repeated and they're taking it seriously, eveywhere:
Replies are all on these lines:
Whola lotta polls.
https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-71-a...lenced-discussions-society-needs-have-58-have
OCTOBER 31, 2017 8:32AM
Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share
By EMILY EKINS
The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, a new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.
Full survey results and report found here.
It follows that a solid majority (59%) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others. On the other hand, 40% think government should prevent hate speech. Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:
Americans Oppose Hate Speech Bans, But Say Hate Speech is Morally Unacceptable
Although Americans oppose (59%) outright bans on public hate speech, that doesn’t mean they think hate speech is acceptable. An overwhelming majority (79%) say it’s “morally unacceptable” to say offensive things about racial or religious groups.
Black, Hispanic, and White Americans Disagree about How Free Speech Operates
African Americans and Hispanics are more likely than white Americans to believe:
Two-Thirds Say Colleges Aren’t Doing Enough to Teach the Value of Free Speech
Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should expose students to “all types of viewpoints even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.”
But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats; 57% of Republicans disagree.
76% Say Students Shutting Down Offensive Speakers Reveals “Broader Pattern” of How Students Cope
More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas. About a quarter (22%) think these protests and shutdowns are simply isolated incidents.
However, when asked about specific speakers, about half of Americans with college experience think a wide variety should not be allowed to speak at their college:
65% Say Colleges Should Discipline Students Who Shut Down Invited Campus Speakers
Two-thirds (65%) say colleges need to discipline students who disrupt invited speakers and prevent them from speaking. However, the public is divided about how: 46% want to give students a warning, 31% want the incident noted on the student’s academic record, 22% want them to pay a fine, 20% want to suspend them, 19% favor arresting the students, 13% want to fully expel the students. Three-fourths (75%) of Republicans support some form of punishment for these students, compared to 42% of Democrats.
People of Color Don’t Find Most Microaggressions Offensive
The survey finds that many microaggressions colleges and universities advise faculty and students to avoid aren’t considered offensive by most people of color. The percentage of African Americans and Latinos who say these microaggressions are not offensive are as follows:
Americans Don’t Think Colleges Need to Advise Students on Halloween Costumes
Nearly two-thirds (65%) say colleges shouldn’t advise students about offensive Halloween costumes and should instead let students work it out on their own. A third (33%) think it is the responsibility of the university to remind students not to wear costumes that stereotype racial or ethnic groups at off-campus parties.
20% of Current Students Say College Faculty Has Balanced Mix of Political Views
Only 20% of current college and graduate students believe their college or university faculty has a balanced mix of political views. A plurality (39%) say most college and university professors are liberal, 27% believe most are politically moderate, and 12% believe most are conservative.
Democratic and Republican students see their college campuses differently. A majority (59%) of Republican college students believe that most faculty members are liberal. In contrast, only 35% of Democratic college students agree most professors are liberal.
What Beliefs Should Get People Fired?
Americans tend to oppose firing people for their beliefs. Nevertheless, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say a business executive should be fired if she or he believes transgender people have a mental disorder (44% vs 14%), that homosexuality is a sin (32% vs 10%), and that psychological differences help explain why there are more male than female engineers (34% vs. 14%). Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say a business executive should be fired if they burned the American flag at a weekend political protest (54% vs. 38%).
Republicans Say Journalists Are an Enemy of the American People
A majority (63%) of Republicans agree with President Trump that journalists today are an “enemy of the American people.” Conversely, most Americans (64%), as well as 89% of Democrats and 61% of independents, do not view journalists as the enemy.
These results aren’t surprising given that most Americans believe many major news outlets have a liberal bias, including The New York Times (52%), CNN (50%), and MSNBC (59%). Fox is the one news station in which a majority (56%) believe it has a conservative bias.
Democrats, however, believe most major news organizations are balanced in their reporting including The New York Times (55%), CNN (55%), and CBS (72%). A plurality (44%) also believe the Wall Street Journal is balanced. The two exceptions are that a plurality (47%) believe MSNBC has a liberal tilt and a strong majority (71%) say Fox has a conservative bias.
Republicans, on the other hand, see things differently. Overwhelming majorities believe liberal bias colors reporting at The New York Times (80%), CNN (81%), CBS (73%), and MSNBC (80%). A plurality also feel the Wall Street Journal (48%) has a liberal bias. One exception is that a plurality (44%) believe Fox News has a conservative bias, while 41% believe it provides unbiased reporting.
Despite perceptions of bias, only 29% of the public want the government to prevent media outlets from publishing a story that government officials say is biased or inaccurate. Instead, a strong majority (70%) say government should not have the power to stop such news stories.
Americans Say Wedding Businesses Should Be Required to Serve LGBT People, Not Weddings
The public distinguishes between a business serving people and servicing weddings:
Clinton Voters Can’t Be Friends with Trump Voters
Nearly two-thirds (61%) of Hillary Clinton’s voters agree that it’s “hard” to be friends with Donald Trump’s voters. However, only 34% of Trump’s voters feel the same way about Clinton’s. Instead, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Trump voters don’t think it’s hard to be friends with Clinton voters.
Sign up here to receive forthcoming Cato Institute survey reports
The Cato Institute 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 15-23, 2017 from a national sample of 2,300 Americans 18 years of age and older. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.00 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.
https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-71-a...lenced-discussions-society-needs-have-58-have
OCTOBER 31, 2017 8:32AM
Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share
By EMILY EKINS
The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, a new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.
Full survey results and report found here.
It follows that a solid majority (59%) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others. On the other hand, 40% think government should prevent hate speech. Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:
- 51% of staunch liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
- 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
- 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
- 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
- 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
- 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
- 59% of liberals say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder; only 17% of conservatives agree.
- 39% of conservatives believe it’s hate speech to say the police are racist; only 17% of liberals agree.
- 80% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported; only 36% of conservatives agree.
- 87% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn’t fight in military combat roles, while 47% of conservatives agree.
- 90% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin, while 47% of conservatives agree.
Americans Oppose Hate Speech Bans, But Say Hate Speech is Morally Unacceptable
Although Americans oppose (59%) outright bans on public hate speech, that doesn’t mean they think hate speech is acceptable. An overwhelming majority (79%) say it’s “morally unacceptable” to say offensive things about racial or religious groups.
Black, Hispanic, and White Americans Disagree about How Free Speech Operates
African Americans and Hispanics are more likely than white Americans to believe:
- Free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority viewpoints (59%, 49%, 34%).
- Supporting someone’s right to say racist things is as bad as holding racist views yourself (65%, 61%, 34%).
- People who don’t respect others don’t deserve the right of free speech (59%, 62%, 36%).
- Hate speech is an act of violence (75%, 72%, 46%).
- Our society can prohibit hate speech and still protect free speech (69%, 71%, 49%).
- People usually have bad intentions when they express offensive opinions (70%, 75%, 52%).
Two-Thirds Say Colleges Aren’t Doing Enough to Teach the Value of Free Speech
Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should expose students to “all types of viewpoints even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.”
But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats; 57% of Republicans disagree.
76% Say Students Shutting Down Offensive Speakers Reveals “Broader Pattern” of How Students Cope
More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas. About a quarter (22%) think these protests and shutdowns are simply isolated incidents.
However, when asked about specific speakers, about half of Americans with college experience think a wide variety should not be allowed to speak at their college:
- A speaker who says that all white people are racist (51%)
- A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50%)
- A speaker who says that transgender people have a mental disorder (50%)
- A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49%)
- A speaker who says all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49%)
- A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48%)
- A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48%)
- A speaker who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41%)
- A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40%)
65% Say Colleges Should Discipline Students Who Shut Down Invited Campus Speakers
Two-thirds (65%) say colleges need to discipline students who disrupt invited speakers and prevent them from speaking. However, the public is divided about how: 46% want to give students a warning, 31% want the incident noted on the student’s academic record, 22% want them to pay a fine, 20% want to suspend them, 19% favor arresting the students, 13% want to fully expel the students. Three-fourths (75%) of Republicans support some form of punishment for these students, compared to 42% of Democrats.
People of Color Don’t Find Most Microaggressions Offensive
The survey finds that many microaggressions colleges and universities advise faculty and students to avoid aren’t considered offensive by most people of color. The percentage of African Americans and Latinos who say these microaggressions are not offensive are as follows:
- Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English” Black: 67% Latino: 77%
- Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate” Black: 56% Latino: 63%
- Saying “I don’t notice people’s race” Black: 71% Latino: 80%
- Saying “America is a melting pot” Black: 77% Latino: 70%
- Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77% Latino: 89%
- Saying “America is the land of opportunity” Black: 93% Latino: 89%
Americans Don’t Think Colleges Need to Advise Students on Halloween Costumes
Nearly two-thirds (65%) say colleges shouldn’t advise students about offensive Halloween costumes and should instead let students work it out on their own. A third (33%) think it is the responsibility of the university to remind students not to wear costumes that stereotype racial or ethnic groups at off-campus parties.
20% of Current Students Say College Faculty Has Balanced Mix of Political Views
Only 20% of current college and graduate students believe their college or university faculty has a balanced mix of political views. A plurality (39%) say most college and university professors are liberal, 27% believe most are politically moderate, and 12% believe most are conservative.
Democratic and Republican students see their college campuses differently. A majority (59%) of Republican college students believe that most faculty members are liberal. In contrast, only 35% of Democratic college students agree most professors are liberal.
What Beliefs Should Get People Fired?
Americans tend to oppose firing people for their beliefs. Nevertheless, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say a business executive should be fired if she or he believes transgender people have a mental disorder (44% vs 14%), that homosexuality is a sin (32% vs 10%), and that psychological differences help explain why there are more male than female engineers (34% vs. 14%). Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say a business executive should be fired if they burned the American flag at a weekend political protest (54% vs. 38%).
Republicans Say Journalists Are an Enemy of the American People
A majority (63%) of Republicans agree with President Trump that journalists today are an “enemy of the American people.” Conversely, most Americans (64%), as well as 89% of Democrats and 61% of independents, do not view journalists as the enemy.
These results aren’t surprising given that most Americans believe many major news outlets have a liberal bias, including The New York Times (52%), CNN (50%), and MSNBC (59%). Fox is the one news station in which a majority (56%) believe it has a conservative bias.
Democrats, however, believe most major news organizations are balanced in their reporting including The New York Times (55%), CNN (55%), and CBS (72%). A plurality (44%) also believe the Wall Street Journal is balanced. The two exceptions are that a plurality (47%) believe MSNBC has a liberal tilt and a strong majority (71%) say Fox has a conservative bias.
Republicans, on the other hand, see things differently. Overwhelming majorities believe liberal bias colors reporting at The New York Times (80%), CNN (81%), CBS (73%), and MSNBC (80%). A plurality also feel the Wall Street Journal (48%) has a liberal bias. One exception is that a plurality (44%) believe Fox News has a conservative bias, while 41% believe it provides unbiased reporting.
Despite perceptions of bias, only 29% of the public want the government to prevent media outlets from publishing a story that government officials say is biased or inaccurate. Instead, a strong majority (70%) say government should not have the power to stop such news stories.
Americans Say Wedding Businesses Should Be Required to Serve LGBT People, Not Weddings
- A plurality (50%) of Americans say that businesses should be required to “provide services to gay and lesbian people,” even if doing so violates the business owners’ religious beliefs.
- But, 68% say a baker should not be required to provide a special-order wedding cake for a same-sex wedding if doing so violates their religious convictions.
Clinton Voters Can’t Be Friends with Trump Voters
Nearly two-thirds (61%) of Hillary Clinton’s voters agree that it’s “hard” to be friends with Donald Trump’s voters. However, only 34% of Trump’s voters feel the same way about Clinton’s. Instead, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Trump voters don’t think it’s hard to be friends with Clinton voters.
Sign up here to receive forthcoming Cato Institute survey reports
The Cato Institute 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 15-23, 2017 from a national sample of 2,300 Americans 18 years of age and older. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.00 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.
Just to take issue with the second item in your list of polls. If the pollster is going to ask loaded questions, they're going to get loaded answers. Every single item on your second graphic displays a position more likely to offend a liberal than a conservative. Hardly surprising that liberals get more offended in that case is it? It's a poll designed to preconfigure the answer.
Reed college stuff is still blowing up -
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/the-surprising-revolt-at-reed/544682/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.08255ca58643
People have questioned before the notion of people being afraid to voice their opinions due to overly PC culture on some of these US colleges. Well the professor above pretty much testifies -
Students too ..
Only good news is that new students have finally revolted against this it seems.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/the-surprising-revolt-at-reed/544682/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.08255ca58643
People have questioned before the notion of people being afraid to voice their opinions due to overly PC culture on some of these US colleges. Well the professor above pretty much testifies -
Students too ..
Only good news is that new students have finally revolted against this it seems.
Good on them. What i don't understand though is the motives of these protesters, what do they truly want? If they want to put police violence on the agenda, occupying and disrupting some freshman course does not seem like the best avenue and.
And why on earth are they going after these professors? The one in the article, Martinez who is a gay mixed-race woman would be as far removed from a white supremacist as possible could be.
And third: Where do these students get these ideas and attitudes from? It can't be the Unis, since they're apparently white supremacist
institutions, but they have to come from somewhere.
Aaaaaand there you have it:
Facebook. Fecking up the world one election/referendum/university at a time.
At this point, it seems they are protesting for the sake of it in lieu of some childish pursuit of one-upmanship. The protests started with BLM movement and had support of majority, shifted focus to Humanities curriculum and now want university to sever ties to big banks.
That seem incredibly short sighted if anything.
Does anyone think David Walliams is racist for dressing up as Kim Jong Un?