Microaggressions?

[fm93]

I see that political correctness protects Muslims and others from any real criticism in our country, but somehow it IS politically correct to denigrate Christians (Phil Robertson, Jason and David Benham, to name a few).

If I may interject here...from what I've seen, it's not that Muslims are immune from criticism; rather, it's that people are increasingly apt to protect the many innocent Muslims against stereotypical charges of terrorism. I've certainly seen the bad Muslims get rightfully criticized. Also, while I don't know the Benhams specifically said or did, Phil Robertson did make some disturbing statements that aren't inherent to Christianity (such as encouraging men to marry 15-16 year old girls), and I can completely understand people denigrating him for things like that.

[Adrift]

You said it.

Lately this site has just become a conservative echo chamber that wants little dissent or reasonable discussion. I've learned that the hard-right on here have little interest in honest debate. You'll address their points, take the time to try and explain the flaws in their logic, provide sources, and you'll just get nothing but stupid talking points from the most laughably crank sources.

I found out in my thread on recycling just how far some will go to defend their ideology over all else. They believe in their political and religious creeds to an extent they're willing to sacrifice even the most basic of sanity in a discussion. When you point it out to them they call you a communist, say you're wanting to stifle their speech, take away their rights, and that every problem in America is because of liberals.

The sweet, loving, forgiving, TRUE American, moral right-wing really show their true colors on here, and it's ain't pretty.

SoR, can I ask, were you a big poster in the Civics section before the crash? I wasn't a big poster in the Civics section before the crash, but it seems to me that, for the most part, the same posters who are currently posting in Civics have always posted in Civics, and have, more or less, always held the same views. Thanks to the crash a lot of regulars have left, or don't post as often. So it seems to me what you're probably experiencing is not an increase in hard-right rhetoric, but a lack of (what you might consider) counter-balance on the left. Granted, this website has always leaned more right than left, but there was a time when there were more left-leaning people in Civics.

Now, as far as this site being an echo chamber, even if that's true, how is that any different than the myriad of predominantly left-leaning websites out there? Posters on Reddit, Tumblr, or the Huffington Post comments section are, in my experience, just as, if not more, extreme in their political views. In fact, the majority of social media forums tend to lean left in my experience. And this is no surprise. I imagine that the majority of social media forum posters tend to be college-aged, tech-savvy types, who, in my experience, tend to be more left-leaning than right-leaning. So, in a way, this place is a bit of an oasis of contrarian thought for some people.

[Adrift]

I'd like to mention that, personally, I don't care for extremist views on either side, and find them all a bit silly, emotional, and over-the-top, but I can always leave if it gets too bothersome.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'd like to mention that, personally, I don't care for extremist views on either side, and find them all a bit silly, emotional, and over-the-top, but I can always leave if it gets too bothersome.

Tweb is hardly extremist right wing views. I've seen worse right and left wing views. Besides, considering how the political environment has been hostel towards traditional Christians, as of late, I can't blame any of them from feeling under attack (unless of course, being forced to pay fines for not wanting to take part in a gay wedding, isn't an attack upon their values).

[lilpixieofterror]

If I may interject here...from what I've seen, it's not that Muslims are immune from criticism; rather, it's that people are increasingly apt to protect the many innocent Muslims against stereotypical charges of terrorism. I've certainly seen the bad Muslims get rightfully criticized. Also, while I don't know the Benhams specifically said or did, Phil Robertson did make some disturbing statements that aren't inherent to Christianity (such as encouraging men to marry 15-16 year old girls), and I can completely understand people denigrating him for things like that.

Actually, I find the news media making some good excuses for our Muslim friends. Stuff like this, I found as rather amusing about the double standards that often can be found around the web (in this case, a very liberal site, being a bunch of hypocrites).

[Adrift]

Tweb is hardly extremist right wing views. I've seen worse right and left wing views. Besides, considering how the political environment has been hostel towards traditional Christians, as of late, I can't blame any of them from feeling under attack (unless of course, being forced to pay fines for not wanting to take part in a gay wedding, isn't an attack upon their values).

I suppose it's not really the extremism of the right-wing views that get me, it's just the over-the-top sensationalism that people tend to pour into their politics, both left and right. The overgeneralizations. The exaggerated claims. The "so-and-so is literally Hitler" sort of silliness. The conspiracy theories that the other side is actually knowingly associated with dark and evil cabals, greedily rubbing their hands together and twirling their mustaches. As though the majority of Democrats and Republicans literally want to see the other side dead. None of that is actually happening. None of that is actually true. The majority of people who hold their views hold them because they genuinely think that their views are for the good of all society. What happens though is that people listen to their favorite talking head, and start memorizing and repeating the rhetoric that paints the other side as monsters, and none of that really leads to fruitful discussion.

[Leonhard]

It still surprises me that the word 'race' is still a thing in the US, as in something you have to deal with on government papers. There's no such thing, at all, as biological human races. Just the one.

[myth]

If I may interject here...from what I've seen, it's not that Muslims are immune from criticism; rather, it's that people are increasingly apt to protect the many innocent Muslims against stereotypical charges of terrorism. I've certainly seen the bad Muslims get rightfully criticized. Also, while I don't know the Benhams specifically said or did, Phil Robertson did make some disturbing statements that aren't inherent to Christianity (such as encouraging men to marry 15-16 year old girls), and I can completely understand people denigrating him for things like that.

Let's be honest, the hoopla wasn't over comments about marrying 15 year old girls (though that is a bit disturbing). What set off the firestorm was him paraphrasing (or was it quoting?) the Bible and condemning homosexuality.

When's the last time you saw large corporations and/or government condemning Muslims, or publicly distancing themselves from Muslims because of their expressed beliefs? You talk of criticizing the 'bad' Muslims, but don't most Muslims condemn homosexuality like many Christians do? Let's equate apples to apples. Being critical of radical Muslims doesn't count, just like being critical of people like the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't count.

[Leonhard]

Is it just me or is seer litterally trying to get angry at things? I'm really having a hard time seeing what's worth getting worked up over in that article. Its describing bad behavior and various tactics to deal with that bad behavior.

About the only reason I think one would be angry is if you deep down think there's something right, true, real and good about a lil' of the ye old racism. And one is upset because these tactics are actually effective in culling behavior like that, which shouldn't be tolerated in various institutions. If I ran a company I'd employ most if not all of those things implied there. As for gender binary options, a third options of 'not willing to disclose' is fine.

[Teallaura]

FYI: I have been busy and a bit tired. I intend to come back to this when I'm not so testy. For the record, I'm not upset or angry with FM and I did see his post. I just wanna answer in a better frame of mind so I do a better job.

[seer]

It still surprises me that the word 'race' is still a thing in the US, as in something you have to deal with on government papers. There's no such thing, at all, as biological human races. Just the one.

Aren't you guys like 90% white in Denmark?

[seer]

Is it just me or is seer litterally trying to get angry at things? I'm really having a hard time seeing what's worth getting worked up over in that article. Its describing bad behavior and various tactics to deal with that bad behavior.

About the only reason I think one would be angry is if you deep down think there's something right, true, real and good about a lil' of the ye old racism. And one is upset because these tactics are actually effective in culling behavior like that, which shouldn't be tolerated in various institutions. If I ran a company I'd employ most if not all of those things implied there. As for gender binary options, a third options of 'not willing to disclose' is fine.

That is just silly Leonhard. Perhaps we are just chaffing at the increasing attempt to control the language, because once you do, you control the debate. And in my OP what exactly was the bad behavior that you are speaking of? Calling America a melting pot is bad behavior? Saying that there is only one race, the human race is bad behavior? Or asking someone to speak up is bad behavior?

[Leonhard]

Aren't you guys like 90% white in Denmark?

Most people here have a light skin tone yes. There's still only one race in the world. Ethnicity, however is a real thing, and that's not something that should be diminished. However the idea that we can seperate humans in boxes called 'races' such as 'Caucasian' and 'Negro', is a seriously outdated biological idea.

[Leonhard]

That is just silly Leonhard. Perhaps we are just chaffing at the increasing attempt to control the language, because once you do, you control the debate.

There was no control of debate in that article. It was about how to curb discrimination, and that's always incumbent on those in power to implement changes like that. And since its wrong to refer to someone as 'you people', its good that professors of that college were trained to not do it. If I owned a business I'd do the same to my managers. I'm kinda surprised that this is controversial. What is this the fifties?

And in my OP what exactly was the bad behavior that you are speaking of? Calling America a melting pot is bad behavior?

Yes.

Saying that there is only one race, the human race is bad behavior?

Yes, if its done in a way that denies a person ethnicity, and the reality of the discrimination they face. I misread this the first time I saw the OP.

Or asking someone to speak up is bad behavior?

It depends on what was meant by that. The article doesn't make it clear. Certainly one can act aggressive towards a person by saying 'Speak up' in an intimidating manner. Again, if this is the kind of bad behavior referred to, what's the controversy.

Again, unless you think its good to refer to blacks as 'you people' and something they should just put up with and accept. And something its bad for colleges to ask their staff to avoid. Etc... I don't see any problems here.

[seer]

There was no control of debate in that article. It was about how to curb discrimination, and that's always incumbent on those in power to implement changes like that. And since its wrong to refer to someone as 'you people', its good that professors of that college were trained to not do it. If I owned a business I'd do the same to my managers. I'm kinda surprised that this is controversial. What is this the fifties?

Let's camp on "you people." It can be use affectionately - "you people are great, thanks so much" or not so affectionately "you people are full of crap." As I often say to liberals. The phrase in itself can be neutral. And if some one is offended they should get a backbone. They way I, and the way we operated in the US for my lifetime, is that if you don't like certain speech you fight it with more speech - we are too sensitive, just looking for ways to be offended.