Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I'm less sure of that. What my take is, and part of why I disliked Sanders' political correctness comment (besides the implied disdain for female and/or minority Clinton voters) is that it's like Sanders promises pro-working class policies as well as some anti "identity politics" dog whistles. Trump promises pro-working class policies and open racism. If Sanders' is right about that political correctness comment, why would people want heavily watered down politically incorrect views from him when they could get the real thing from Trump?
The Democrats simply don't fight dirty enough. It wouldn't have matter who they had put up, Trump would have told so many lies that everyone would have been convinced that he or she is the worst candidate possible. After all, Trump didn't really have to convince anyone but his rabbit followers to vote for him, he just had to convince anyone else NOT to vote for Hillary. It worked.
![]()
Define "political correctness" for us then. Let's see what you actually know of the subject
Which, ironically, is a call for political correctness. Only in this case, to protect themselves from the consequences of actual wrongdoing.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:40:03 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youFor what it's worth, in his comments (IIRC in a Town Hall with Chris Hayes) Sanders seemed to be oddly redefining political correctness to mean consensuses on free trade which he challenged- something Hayes tried to call him on- but the dogwhistle was obviously there of dismissing Democrats' social and racial justice stances/interest as political correctness. I mean it has to be there because he was saying that this is why people bought what Trump was selling.
In other words, Sanders basically just wants to focus on issues he thinks are most important while not masking his dislike for what he sees as 'demographic stuff.'
Seriously, screw him for painting the Democrats as just another face of the corrupt monolithic establishment. He should bear some of this responsibility, and not be given free rein to wag his finger and say how he told us so.
I think to the extent it makes sense, Sanders was engaging in the Etymological fallacy
in that the earlier meanings of "politically correct" would mean something to the effect of an establishment view (although in a positive sense, as this was the correct view).
So in that way, free trade advocacy could be said to be politically correct based on the earlier definition of politically correct. Of course, no one uses the term in that sense anymore, which is why it seems obvious Sanders was accusing the Democratic Party of being politically correct in the modern sense.
Yeah. That's kind how I feel too and what plays into my feelings toward critiques from the Left about the need to fix the party and not complain. I don't intrinsically disagree, but I have a problem when that advice is coming from people who don't belong to the Party and are essentially hostile to it. Like I'm cool with either Keith Ellison or the other contender to lead the Party, but I have real issues with how Sanders and similarly Tim Ryan seem to understand what the Democratic Party is/should be.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:50:54 AM by Hodor2
I was under the distinct impression that Sanders wanted the same thing the rest of the Democratic party wanted?
including better racial equality, better LGBT rights, and so forth?
And the refusal to tolerate bigotry is problematic because .... ?
It's not constructive in the least to give bigoted opinions equal standing with their counterparts, or to pretend they're anywhere near legitimate.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:51:28 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youBernie Sanders seems to be kind of economic justice "true believer", that once you have that then everything else comes naturally. This election has been harsh proof that that is not the case, but it seems he's also caught whole "dems neglecgting the white working class" meme that's really divided people on the left. That makes sense since that was ultimately the demographic he represented and I don't think he fully understands why they rejected his side.
I also think it's important to point out that for many Sanders supporters and socialist leaning types tend to favor an economic justice platform even to the exclusion social justice is the somewhat selfish sentiment that the former will benefit them directly while the latter will not.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:51:04 AM by Mio
![]()
I find that hard to believe, though, given that Sanders began his political career campaigning for racial equality, going all the way back to his college days of getting arrested in Chicago for participating in the Civil Rights movement, and has been pro-LGBT for a very long time, back before it was considered a "politically correct" thing to do.
I don't think he would sacrifice social equality for a second.
You jsut
me with a response to me, cutting in front of my response of me to a response to me
edited 19th Dec '16 8:55:35 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
There are those who view that approach as a ceaseless pander to the minority. The LGBT demographics make up barely 5% of the population and consequently people can view it as politicians being enslaved to a vocal minority.
And who decides if comments are bigoted are not? My political views are quite different from many on this forum yet I have not made any attempt to denigrate people for that. Having zero tolerance for racial and homophobic slurs is fine by me. But banning religious imagery such as Santa Claus and getting into trouble for saying "Merry Christmas" are not deterrents for bigotry, they are incentives for it.
![]()
Doing the right thing when you are in university does not equate to always doing it. Sanders essentially tries to coast on his past involvement.
Not letting someone be punished for their sexuality is hardly being enslaved. Nor does it matter how few they are. If people are having their rights stripped away, that matters.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:58:51 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
![]()
![]()
Sometimes I'm left wondering if that actually is a leftover from the Red Scare. Since the American Communist Party did go against both economic and racial inequality, emphasizing both as a "socialist" candidate might trip a whole lot of red flags Bernie or Busters don't even know exist.
![]()
![]()
Has anyone even been subject to either?
edited 19th Dec '16 8:59:11 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@ blkwhtrbbt1-
That's what I mean though. It's like he and his supporters rightly trumpet that, especially in criticizing Clinton's views on those issues- which is fair. But then they also basically criticize Clinton and supporters for over-emphasizing those things and turning off the (assumed to be white) working class.
Part of it is that a lot of millionaires/elites are socially liberal if not economically, and the Sanders wing doesn't want those people in the Party. And coupled with that, I get the sense that there's this underlying belief on the Left (don't think Sanders himself has expressed it in these terms) that the social and racial justice is like an "opiate of the people" used to trick minorties into voting for Democrats. Which besides various unfortunate implications, ignores that lots of Democratic politicians/leaders are themselves members of minority groups.
Edit- Kind of confused as to my earlier reply and yours. This thread moves fast.
edited 19th Dec '16 9:01:01 AM by Hodor2
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Then those are not "politically correct". They are themselves a bigoted approach to life. Religious freedom is constitutionally protected, as far as expressions of those freedoms do not encroach on the freedom of others.
edited 19th Dec '16 9:00:36 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you

The atheism wouldn't have endeared him to the religious right, that's for damn sure.
Disgusted, but not surprised