Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy

[kaz]

But privacy laws don't protect Trump from his tax returns? Wow, your hypocrisy reeks, girl

Wow, you're assumptions reek.

Privacy laws protect Trump's tax returns as well.

Doesn't stop people from illegally leaking stuff. And, it doesn't stop people from "demanding" stuff or making up conspiracy theories. It's still protected by law and it's laughable to hear those who claim that Obama had them "specially sealed"

I never said what you said I did, so again, whiff ...

What did I say you said?

Something about Obama sealing something. Is that a reference to his grades? I've never said that or anything like it

Go back and read what I wrote.

Umm ... yes ... you said "it's laughable to hear those who claim that Obama had them "specially sealed."

Same question, what did I say Obama had sealed?

 

[there4eyeM]

"P.c." is not new at all. The tendency just didn't have that title before. Social pressure to use certain words to mean certain things, or words not to be used at all, probably began about the time language did.

The use of the as a weapon to silence political dissent and to control the conversation is a much later development and in this specific example of Today, certainly worth discussing as a specific case.

Perhaps, if it were being discussed intelligently and constructively. Sadly, as with most 'discussions' here, it is merely another excuse to drag out the tired clichés and mindless name-calling.

 

[kaz]

"P.c." is not new at all. The tendency just didn't have that title before. Social pressure to use certain words to mean certain things, or words not to be used at all, probably began about the time language did.

The use of the as a weapon to silence political dissent and to control the conversation is a much later development and in this specific example of Today, certainly worth discussing as a specific case.

Perhaps, if it were being discussed intelligently and constructively. Sadly, as with most 'discussions' here, it is merely another excuse to drag out the tired clichés and mindless name-calling.

Political Correctness is just another chance for liberals to demonstrate their severe intolerance

 

[Correll]

"P.c." is not new at all. The tendency just didn't have that title before. Social pressure to use certain words to mean certain things, or words not to be used at all, probably began about the time language did.

The use of the as a weapon to silence political dissent and to control the conversation is a much later development and in this specific example of Today, certainly worth discussing as a specific case.

Perhaps, if it were being discussed intelligently and constructively. Sadly, as with most 'discussions' here, it is merely another excuse to drag out the tired clichés and mindless name-calling.

As political correctness is normally used to shut down real debate, challenging that is an attempt to save or increase intelligent discussion.

 

[there4eyeM]

"P.c." is not new at all. The tendency just didn't have that title before. Social pressure to use certain words to mean certain things, or words not to be used at all, probably began about the time language did.

The use of the as a weapon to silence political dissent and to control the conversation is a much later development and in this specific example of Today, certainly worth discussing as a specific case.

Perhaps, if it were being discussed intelligently and constructively. Sadly, as with most 'discussions' here, it is merely another excuse to drag out the tired clichés and mindless name-calling.

As political correctness is normally used to shut down real debate, challenging that is an attempt to save or increase intelligent discussion.

Ah, what a relief! A reasonable voice, someone deserving of dialog.
Yes, though we can agree with its sentiment at times, p.c. in and of itself is foolish non-sense. One of the problems with it, though, is that one must engage in it to some extent merely to understand and debate it. Thus, it is easy to fall into a linguistic trap from which it is very difficult to extricate a discussion. On a personal level, I refuse to engage in it and confront 'p.c.ers' with my own words and terms, though not to the point of real dispute; it just isn't that important.

 

[Correll]

"P.c." is not new at all. The tendency just didn't have that title before. Social pressure to use certain words to mean certain things, or words not to be used at all, probably began about the time language did.

The use of the as a weapon to silence political dissent and to control the conversation is a much later development and in this specific example of Today, certainly worth discussing as a specific case.

Perhaps, if it were being discussed intelligently and constructively. Sadly, as with most 'discussions' here, it is merely another excuse to drag out the tired clichés and mindless name-calling.

As political correctness is normally used to shut down real debate, challenging that is an attempt to save or increase intelligent discussion.

Ah, what a relief! A reasonable voice, someone deserving of dialog.
Yes, though we can agree with its sentiment at times, p.c. in and of itself is foolish non-sense. One of the problems with it, though, is that one must engage in it to some extent merely to understand and debate it. Thus, it is easy to fall into a linguistic trap from which it is very difficult to extricate a discussion. On a personal level, I refuse to engage in it and confront 'p.c.ers' with my own words and terms, though not to the point of real dispute; it just isn't that important.

I've tried posting memes that point out the mindless and repetitive nature of the various uses of PC, but then I get reported for "trolling" even though I am responding to the same point over and over again.

So far, I see no way to stop the bogging down of discussion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's crazy to give people in one state more weight than another.

Well WTF do you think would happen if we used the popular vote then?????

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It's crazy to give people in one state more weight than another.

Well WTF do you think would happen if we used the popular vote then?????

That really is the dumbest post I have ever read on here.
An awesome achievement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If people wanted universal healthcare they wouldn't have voted in Trump. If people wanted universal healthcare, the Congress and Senate would be Democrat led today.

They didnt' vote for Trump. 53% of people voted against Trump.

Guy, you didn't win over the voters. You gamed the system. Now, nothing wrong with that. We have this awful system that we haven't fixed.

But don't pretend you won the argument... because you didn't.

Yeah, this awful system we didn't fix.

Well this is the third time you leftists blamed the system and not your candidate. The last two complaints led the country to spend tens of millions of dollars catering to you snowflakes, and you're still complaining.

Oh! And what if things were reversed and Hil-Liar won the electoral votes and Trump the popular? You would be defending the electoral college all the way to your last reply on the boards.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That really is the dumbest post I have ever read on here.
An awesome achievement.

Coming from a Commie leftist, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh please. Did you know that California has motor voter? Did you also know they give illegals drivers licenses?

Okay, but you still haven't proven illegals voted.

I mean, you guys have been making this claim since 2000, you'd think you'd have proof by now.

Yes, there are some slight markings between a drivers license of an illegal and a DR of a citizens, but do you really believe that some Democrat poll worker wouldn't overlook that marking? And why do you suppose they started motor voter anyway? Because they wanted to make sure legitimate Americans vote every election?

Well, no. If it works in CA the way it works in IL, they have a list of people who are registered to vote in that precinct. And every precinct has a poll watcher from each party to make sure that the person voting is the person he says he is.

It makes me wonder if you know how voting actually works.

Maybe, but what about the illegals that were given drivers licenses and they registered them to vote? What then? They are on the books as a registered voter and can walk right up to the voting machine and cast a vote for Democrats.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If people wanted universal healthcare they wouldn't have voted in Trump. If people wanted universal healthcare, the Congress and Senate would be Democrat led today.

They didnt' vote for Trump. 53% of people voted against Trump.

Guy, you didn't win over the voters. You gamed the system. Now, nothing wrong with that. We have this awful system that we haven't fixed.

But don't pretend you won the argument... because you didn't.

Yeah, this awful system we didn't fix.

Well this is the third time you leftists blamed the system and not your candidate. The last two complaints led the country to spend tens of millions of dollars catering to you snowflakes, and you're still complaining.

Oh! And what if things were reversed and Hil-Liar won the electoral votes and Trump the popular? You would be defending the electoral college all the way to your last reply on the boards.

You are correct about them defending it when it is clearly to their advantage. I have had this argument on forums local to Maryland, see, in Maryland as a conservative, my vote for president does not count, never has, there really is no reason for me to vote for president other than the fact that Im bored. But I do, it also gives me the right to complain.
The reason that my vote does not count is because of the EC, in Maryland the voters will vote for the democrat no matter who it is, if both hillary and Donald had run the same campaigns, said the same thing, had the same everything except that Donald was the D and hillary was the R, Donald would have won Maryland's EC votes.
When I argue this with those here, (and some that drop in from other states) Their response is basically that the EC is there as a safety net to insure that the majority do not get to automatically rule the minority. Its there to keep more populated states closer to equal to the smaller states.
You have to consider that fact that when the EC was first written in to the election process, everything was about the states, the states rights, state lines, state commerce etc... the individual was part of the state and his contributions were for the state. Try to imagine it almost like those living in Maryland or California looking at Georgia or Florida much like a U.S citizen would look at Cuba or Russia. State pride was a huge factor.
The idea or fear was that if a state with enough voters were to decide an election, they would be able to vote themselves things that could be detrimental to the smaller populated states. Lets say California decided that it deserved free cotton, so through popular vote and legal process of determining things, there was a vote that if won, would make it law that 40% of all cotton produced in the state of Georgia would from that point on be shipped free of charge to California. The vote wins and suddenly Georgia sees a 40% loss in its revenue. Far fetched yes but essentially that is the reason for the EC, its so that a few highly populated states do not get to dictate to the less populated states how they are going to live.
You will note that with the EC there is no way to win without the votes from at least a few of the small states along with the larger states. Possible but not likely.
But at any rate, if you want to hear the liberals arguing how great the EC is and how well it works, just wait till all of this blows over and then go to a local state forum of a historically democratic state and start complaining how the EC disenfranchises the Conservative voters. They will be glad to share with you an accurate reason for the EC. Its not that they dont understand, its just that it is not working to their advantage right now so it should be changed. Anything that gives them an upper hand.

 

[JoeB131]

Well WTF do you think would happen if we used the popular vote then?????

Everyone's vote would have teh same weight. One person. one vote.

This isn't complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe, but what about the illegals that were given drivers licenses and they registered them to vote? What then? They are on the books as a registered voter and can walk right up to the voting machine and cast a vote for Democrats.

Well, no, they can't. Because they aren't citizens... Really, guy this isn't complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

eah, this awful system we didn't fix.

Well this is the third time you leftists blamed the system and not your candidate. The last two complaints led the country to spend tens of millions of dollars catering to you snowflakes, and you're still complaining.

Oh! And what if things were reversed and Hil-Liar won the electoral votes and Trump the popular? You would be defending the electoral college all the way to your last reply on the boards.

Well, no, I wouldn't because I've always been a critic of the EC. I've never thought it was a good idea.

 

[ptbw forever]

eah, this awful system we didn't fix.

Well this is the third time you leftists blamed the system and not your candidate. The last two complaints led the country to spend tens of millions of dollars catering to you snowflakes, and you're still complaining.

Oh! And what if things were reversed and Hil-Liar won the electoral votes and Trump the popular? You would be defending the electoral college all the way to your last reply on the boards.

Well, no, I wouldn't because I've always been a critic of the EC. I've never thought it was a good idea.

Some Republican you were.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe, but what about the illegals that were given drivers licenses and they registered them to vote? What then? They are on the books as a registered voter and can walk right up to the voting machine and cast a vote for Democrats.

Well, no, they can't. Because they aren't citizens... Really, guy this isn't complicated.

It must be to the California Motor Vehicles, because even they admitted they can't distinguish a citizen from an illegal when they come in to get their DR. And of course these foreigners who broke our laws would never lie, would they?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Maybe, but what about the illegals that were given drivers licenses and they registered them to vote? What then? They are on the books as a registered voter and can walk right up to the voting machine and cast a vote for Democrats.

Well, no, they can't. Because they aren't citizens... Really, guy this isn't complicated.

well yes, they can, because the left wont let there be any type of certification of citizenship or anything else before casting a vote. Those filthy pieces of illegal shit vote in maryland every election, you see them lined up at the polling place every time.
They are also responsible for the excessive votes in California this time around. Thank God the EC was in place to stop them from winning.
Im sure the founding fathers never imagined that the EC would protect the U.S from foreign nations taking control of our government, but that is exactly what it did this time around.

 

[Mac1958]

Everyone knows what PC is, everyone knows it exists, everyone knows what it looks like.

Those who play these little games are just trying to hold on to it for as long as they can.

Let them. They know it just kicked them square in the ass, they can deny it all they want.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If people wanted universal healthcare they wouldn't have voted in Trump. If people wanted universal healthcare, the Congress and Senate would be Democrat led today.

They didnt' vote for Trump. 53% of people voted against Trump.

Guy, you didn't win over the voters. You gamed the system. Now, nothing wrong with that. We have this awful system that we haven't fixed.

But don't pretend you won the argument... because you didn't.

Yeah, this awful system we didn't fix.

Well this is the third time you leftists blamed the system and not your candidate. The last two complaints led the country to spend tens of millions of dollars catering to you snowflakes, and you're still complaining.

Oh! And what if things were reversed and Hil-Liar won the electoral votes and Trump the popular? You would be defending the electoral college all the way to your last reply on the boards.

You are correct about them defending it when it is clearly to their advantage. I have had this argument on forums local to Maryland, see, in Maryland as a conservative, my vote for president does not count, never has, there really is no reason for me to vote for president other than the fact that Im bored. But I do, it also gives me the right to complain.
The reason that my vote does not count is because of the EC, in Maryland the voters will vote for the democrat no matter who it is, if both hillary and Donald had run the same campaigns, said the same thing, had the same everything except that Donald was the D and hillary was the R, Donald would have won Maryland's EC votes.
When I argue this with those here, (and some that drop in from other states) Their response is basically that the EC is there as a safety net to insure that the majority do not get to automatically rule the minority. Its there to keep more populated states closer to equal to the smaller states.
You have to consider that fact that when the EC was first written in to the election process, everything was about the states, the states rights, state lines, state commerce etc... the individual was part of the state and his contributions were for the state. Try to imagine it almost like those living in Maryland or California looking at Georgia or Florida much like a U.S citizen would look at Cuba or Russia. State pride was a huge factor.
The idea or fear was that if a state with enough voters were to decide an election, they would be able to vote themselves things that could be detrimental to the smaller populated states. Lets say California decided that it deserved free cotton, so through popular vote and legal process of determining things, there was a vote that if won, would make it law that 40% of all cotton produced in the state of Georgia would from that point on be shipped free of charge to California. The vote wins and suddenly Georgia sees a 40% loss in its revenue. Far fetched yes but essentially that is the reason for the EC, its so that a few highly populated states do not get to dictate to the less populated states how they are going to live.
You will note that with the EC there is no way to win without the votes from at least a few of the small states along with the larger states. Possible but not likely.
But at any rate, if you want to hear the liberals arguing how great the EC is and how well it works, just wait till all of this blows over and then go to a local state forum of a historically democratic state and start complaining how the EC disenfranchises the Conservative voters. They will be glad to share with you an accurate reason for the EC. Its not that they dont understand, its just that it is not working to their advantage right now so it should be changed. Anything that gives them an upper hand.

Just using liberal members of USMB, they all giggled like little school girls when they thought it would turn out the opposite: Trump winning the popular vote and Hil-Liar winning the election. I wish I had half of a day to kill where I could go back before the election to find some of their taunts about it. Not one complaint back then how unfair that would be to Trump if that were to happen.

Outside of USMB, some liberals in the media were making the same prediction about the results. Again, nobody complaining about how we choose our President. Because remember (as Trump laughed about last night) there was no path for Trump getting to 270.

Your example of what could happen without the EC is very good one. Iowa has a population of less than 2 million people. New York City has over 9 million people alone. Using a popular vote, it would take five Iowa's to equal NYC--just one city in the United States! So without the EC, what defense of those less populated states have for being abused by liberals to buy votes?

As we know, that's exactly how Democrats win elections; giving people things. Free healthcare, free college, paid leave for both genders of a workplace for just about any reason, earlier child education, the list goes on and on. Right now, they can promise people these things because they will increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for them. The wealthy doesn't have an electoral college. They are very small in numbers. So Democrats can target them to pay for all their goodies.

Without an EC, the liberals would have another target to foot the bill for their handouts, smaller states.