What's new

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Bourdain sounded to me as pretty clueless. For example, the term political correctness is not a term that universities use to impede speech, it's a slur used by those who like like to be polite. Comedians do have an important function in criticizing social constructs, but (as an example) fat-shaming serves no purpose in that regard. There's a difference between commentary on society and treating people like they are side-show freaks.

As for the vindication of the Trump supporters, what he vindicates is their hatred. For many of them, their way of getting by and taking care includes making sure that they never see two men kissing or a man in glitter and a dress.
Comes across as pretty smug and dismissive to be honest. That is kind of what Bourdain was getting at, in the spirit of his comments, imo.

And to me that is the crux of the problem, we have gotten to the point where the only way we engage the "other side" is with smugness and dismissiveness. As he states, that doesn't bring people to the table, find common ground, or win hearts or minds. Just widens the gap.
 
Comes across as pretty smug and dismissive to be honest. That is kind of what Bourdain was getting at, in the spirit of his comments, imo.

And to me that is the crux of the problem, we have gotten to the point where the only way we engage the "other side" is with smugness and dismissiveness. As he states, that doesn't bring people to the table, find common ground, or win hearts or minds. Just widens the gap.
I'll acknowledge it was dismissive. I've read so many white, straight, cis men who like to talk about the importance of rational and allowing all discussion, when it's not their rights and their treatment being discussed. Bourdain's comments reminded me of the white liberals King complained about. If we were talking FTF, I don't think you'd see me as smug, more like smiling with anger. As for my second paragraph, I'll let contemporary events in red states speak for me.

I agree we need to engage with people, but it won't happen by accepting insults without push-back, as Bourdain recommends. Engagement requires everyone to acknowledge that they are dealing with people, individuals who are just trying to live their lives, on the left as well as on the right. Acceptance of othering doesn't bring people closer together.

Edit: Added "not"
 
Last edited:
What the term political correctness means and how it is used depends entirely on what period of time you're talking about. Same thing for "fake news" which began during the Trump campaign and shortly after the election to describe sham "news" websites with pseudo-journalism articles attacking Hillary and the Libruls. Then Trump flipped it. Conservatives did the same thing with "political correctness" and more recently with things like "CRT" and "Woke."

"Politically correct" came into the modern sense in 1970, went unused for 5 years, and was being used ironically in 1975 by people on the left in the US. In the US, it has never been used as an official policy of a university, nor any similar organization.
 
I'll acknowledge it was dismissive. I've read so many white, straight, cis men who like to talk about the importance of rational and allowing all discussion, when it's their rights and their treatment being discussed. Bourdain's comments reminded me of the white liberals King complained about. If we were talking FTF, I don't think you'd see me as smug, more like smiling with anger. As for my second paragraph, I'll let contemporary events in red states speak for me.

I agree we need to engage with people, but it won't happen by accepting insults without push-back, as Bourdain recommends. Engagement requires everyone to acknowledge that they are dealing with people, individuals who are just trying to live their lives, on the left as well as on the right. Acceptance of othering doesn't bring people closer together.
Biko said much the same: "A Black man should be more independent and depend on himself for his freedom and not to take it for granted that someone would lead him to it. The blacks are tired of standing at the touchlines to witness a game that they should be playing. They want to do things for themselves and all by themselves." Or, to put it more succinctly, "Black man, you are on your own."
 

"Politically correct" came into the modern sense in 1970, went unused for 5 years, and was being used ironically in 1975 by people on the left in the US. In the US, it has never been used as an official policy of a university, nor any similar organization.
I didn't think it was ever used in an official capacity or as policy. It was in the early 80s as far as I recall a sort of short-hand for "**** I could say that would get me canceled" or "the insensitive way we used to refer to something" and was almost always used as a "not" statement, as in "this is not politically correct" or "I can't say because the answer isn't politically correct." I saw it used on occasion in the late 80s maybe early 90s with some degree of reverence, like someone steering away from a subject because they didn't have the correct vocabulary to talk about it in a "politically correct" way or as an acknowledgement that their own unenlightened perspective on something could get them in trouble. By the mid-90s it had been flipped and was being used as a badge of honor by people brave enough to not care about being "politically correct."

I always understood it to essentially mean that when engaged in politics (for government office or in the more general sense of the term) one should be careful not to anger or alienate, through hurtful or careless language, those who might otherwise be sympathetic to their message.
 
I’m old enough to remember when it was really really outrageous when a comedian made a bad joke depicting Trump to be decapitated. So I’m guessing that the right must be outraged over this. After all, law and order, Amiright?

F34FE3B6-3C60-488D-964F-62A6337C5535.jpeg

This seems… crazy. Death and destruction

64A6082F-1A1D-4DDC-A1C3-69192CCCA922.jpeg
 
Trump inciting violence just leading to more potentially dangerous violent situations. Who saw that coming?


A powdery substance was found Friday with a threatening letter in a mailroom at the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

“Alvin, I am going to kill you,” the letter said, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing investigation and did so on condition of anonymity.

The discovery, in the same building where a grand jury is expected to resume work Monday, came amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from Trump, a Republican who is holding the first rally of his 2024 presidential campaign Saturday in Waco, Texas. (anniversary of the famous Waco standoff years ago. Pretty sure that is intentional)

Hours earlier, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that any criminal charge against him could lead to “potential death & destruction.”

Trump also posted a photo of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg, a Democrat. On Thursday, Trump referred to Bragg, Manhattan's first Black district attorney, as an “animal.”

In a memo to staff Friday, Bragg said the office has also been receiving offensive and threatening phone calls and emails
 
I'll acknowledge it was dismissive. I've read so many white, straight, cis men who like to talk about the importance of rational and allowing all discussion, when it's not their rights and their treatment being discussed. Bourdain's comments reminded me of the white liberals King complained about. If we were talking FTF, I don't think you'd see me as smug, more like smiling with anger. As for my second paragraph, I'll let contemporary events in red states speak for me.

I agree we need to engage with people, but it won't happen by accepting insults without push-back, as Bourdain recommends. Engagement requires everyone to acknowledge that they are dealing with people, individuals who are just trying to live their lives, on the left as well as on the right. Acceptance of othering doesn't bring people closer together.

Edit: Added "not"
Wow we read so totally differently into that. You read specifically to find the offensive parts, from my perception. I read to see the part about needing to come together to understand EACH OTHER, not just dismiss anyone that refuses to understand YOU, while we blissfully ignore the impact in our smug self-righteousness. And frankly it has to start somewhere unless you are advocating for civil war, force the opinion you want others to have, and if they won't, they aren't worth your time or effort. That's how that comes across in that context honestly. I fully agree we cannot let blatant insults and racism and sexism and all that just lie, but we have to use the best tool for the job when repudiating it and shouting people down has been proven time and again that it doesn't work. That's actually what he's getting at. That the left makes these smug comments knowing they have the moral high ground and not thinking about what it ACTUALLY takes to get people to at least try to see a different point of view. And in his mind that means that the rise of someone like Trump was inevitable because we've been building far more walls than bridges. And your comment and the way it came across was eerily exemplary of exactly the bricks used to build those walls he was getting at.

If my kid does things I don't like i don't beat them, I don't denigrate them. I don't humiliate them. I try to explain that it's wrong, help them see why, and help them see a better way to approach it next time. I show compassion and empathy and acknowledge their feelings are valid. Fear, anger, even hatred, but that there are better ways to have better feelings about the situation. But that kind of approach is too hard and emotionally-intensive to engage in with strangers but frankly it's the only way to get anyone to look at their behavior differently. Study behavior modification theory, even those aimed at business, like Aubrey Daniels, and they get at exactly that. But once the left had the moral high ground they used it to rain bricks on the right. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, many did, but it's the absolute worst way to win hearts and minds, and it set up the atmosphere we see that lead to Trump and the steep decline we're in now.

Of course I'm not saying it was the only factor, there are many, but to deny it has an impact is either naive or willfull ignorance. Or just letting anger and outrage get the best of us, which is frankly what 90% of the populace are running on right now.
 
I read to see the part about needing to come together to understand EACH OTHER, not just dismiss anyone that refuses to understand YOU, while we blissfully ignore the impact in our smug self-righteousness.
Do you really think I have trouble understanding a viewpoint that, until 7 or 8 years ago, was the primary viewpoint on all media in the country? After reading books by wachm (white, abled, cisgender, heterosexual males), seeing wachms dominate the box office, the television screen, politics, etc., who has trouble understanding their thought process. Right-wingers often scream their fear and hate at the top of their lungs, they aren't hidden in some deep place only a conversation can bring out.

And frankly it has to start somewhere unless you are advocating for civil war, force the opinion you want others to have, and if they won't, they aren't worth your time or effort.
It has to start with the acknowledgement that everyone is worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is deserving of the same basic civil rights wachms take for granted, and no one has the right to demand that others must ease being who they are to please that one.

That's how that comes across in that context honestly. I fully agree we cannot let blatant insults and racism and sexism and all that just lie, but we have to use the best tool for the job when repudiating it and shouting people down has been proven time and again that it doesn't work. That's actually what he's getting at. That the left makes these smug comments knowing they have the moral high ground and not thinking about what it ACTUALLY takes to get people to at least try to see a different point of view. And in his mind that means that the rise of someone like Trump was inevitable because we've been building far more walls than bridges. And your comment and the way it came across was eerily exemplary of exactly the bricks used to build those walls he was getting at.

If my kid does things I don't like i don't beat them, I don't denigrate them. I don't humiliate them. I try to explain that it's wrong, help them see why, and help them see a better way to approach it next time. I show compassion and empathy and acknowledge their feelings are valid. Fear, anger, even hatred, but that there are better ways to have better feelings about the situation. But that kind of approach is too hard and emotionally-intensive to engage in with strangers but frankly it's the only way to get anyone to look at their behavior differently. Study behavior modification theory, even those aimed at business, like Aubrey Daniels, and they get at exactly that. But once the left had the moral high ground they used it to rain bricks on the right. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, many did, but it's the absolute worst way to win hearts and minds, and it set up the atmosphere we see that lead to Trump and the steep decline we're in now.

Of course I'm not saying it was the only factor, there are many, but to deny it has an impact is either naive or willfull ignorance. Or just letting anger and outrage get the best of us, which is frankly what 90% of the populace are running on right now.
Every person is different. Some will respond to rational dialogue, some to pleas for empathy, some to nothing. I agree with tailoring your response to the individual.
 
Man this Soros guy sure is powerful. I wish he’d make it so we have a single payer system or gun bans here.

I’m old enough to remember when people thought DeSantis was more palatable than Trump. They’re both deplorable authoritarians!
46642040-74ED-4816-A376-66A1076E498A.png
 
Serious question: Why wasn’t Hillary indicted for paying for the Steele dossier? It seems to me that both trump and hillary have broken the same law when it comes to using fraudulent funds for other than stated purposes and both should be prosecuted. Yes I think trump deserves to be indicted.
 
Back
Top