So where is George Will wrong here?

[mjr]

A Progressive's Guide to Political Correctness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiU20QjKPCo

[Greenday]

A Progressive's Guide to Political Correctness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiU20QjKPCo

Step 1 in trying to convince people of your viewpoint: Don't insult them.

This video failed in less than the first five seconds.

20 seconds in, just insulting.

Nevermind, I can't watch this crap. It's a circlejerk video for conservatives, not someone trying to persuade new people to his viewpoint.

[mjr]

Step 1 in trying to convince people of your viewpoint: Don't insult them.

Valid. Though the problem is that happens far too often on both sides of the political aisle. I'd say that's a great example of where he's wrong.

He could have made the points he was trying to make in other ways, for sure.

[Kheldarson]

It's one big strawman argument that’s trying so hard to be like: see! See! This is what progressives truly are like! while combining several different movements into one and deliberately misunderstanding them as well.

[Gravekeeper]

It's one big strawman argument that’s trying so hard to be like: see! See! This is what progressives truly are like! while combining several different movements into one and deliberately misunderstanding them as well.

Well, this is the guy that tried to argue women in college claim rape just to bask in the attention and special privileges it apparently incurs. -.-

[Kheldarson]

Well, this is the guy that tried to argue women in college claim rape just to bask in the attention and special privileges it apparently incurs. -.-

Wait, what?

I'm going to go cry now. That's horrible.

[Rageaholic]

Curses! You found the one issue I can agree with the right on. These people who demand that things change because it offends them (though to be fair, I think a lot of people are sick of them).

[Anthony K. S.]

George Will : ... who can most flamboyantly claim to be offended, to proclaim that their feelings have been hurt, or that their sensitivities have been rubbed raw, or their serenity disturbed, or their composure discombobulated, by something that someone has said, or by something they have seen, such as a Confederate flag, or a building named after Woodrow Wilson ...


Oh, I get it. You mean like people being offended by :

A Coca-Cola commercial, aired during the 2014 Super Bowl, with the song "America the Beautiful" being sung in several different languages, and featuring people of all different ethnicities and backgrounds, including a gay couple and a Muslim woman ...

A commercial for a sleep aid product which reduces snoring, featuring a married couple - a Caucasian U.S. soldier and a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf ...

A woman kissing another woman, on television shows like "Roseanne" or "Star Trek : Deep Space Nine" ... In fact, any depiction of two people of the same gender kissing, in any film or printed material, or, heaven forbid, in real life ...

Displaying a rainbow flag ... Rainbow-colored Doritos ... An image of an Oreo cookie with six layers of rainbow-colored frosting (which, sadly, was just a photoshopped image that Oreo made in support of Gay Pride, they never actually made this cookie) ...

A commercial for Campbell's soup depicting two gay men feeding soup to their young son ...

Any depiction of homosexuality or transgenderism as being normal or acceptable, and especially any mention of either at all in a school ...

Children being encouraged to be good "global citizens," as opposed to simply being good "American citizens" ...

The expression "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" ...

A J.Crew advertisement featuring the company's president, Jenna Lyons, painting her son's toenails pink ...

Billboards with atheist messages ...

The construction of a "Festivus Pole" in front of a Christmas nativity scene ...

The "overuse" of secular images instead of religious ones during Christmas and Easter ...

The renaming of the Tulsa, OK "Christmas Parade of Lights" to "Holiday Parade of Lights" ...

Schools teaching evolution but not creationism ...

The whole "Dixie Chicks" controversy, or any other criticism of the U.S. President (especially a Republican one), government, or military during a time of war ...

Any complaints of American police departments being racist ...

Bulletin boards encouraging people to examine their "privilege" ...

A depiction of Jesus or Santa Claus that is not Caucasian ...

President Obama failing to salute a Marine before boarding the Marine One helicopter, even though, by protocol, the President, as a civilian, is not even supposed to salute military personnel ...

The use of the term "French Fries" instead of the more patriotically approved "Freedom Fries," rather like how, during World War I, sauerkraut, hamburgers, and frankfurters became known as "liberty cabbage," "liberty steak," and "liberty sausage" ...

A painting of three firefighters raising an American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center, but which depicted the firefighters as three different ethnicities rather than all Caucasian ... although, admittedly, in real life, the three firefighters who actually did raise the U.S. flag over Ground Zero were all Caucasian ...

Criticisms of Islamophobia in the United States and other Western countries ...

Burning or destroying an American flag as a form of protest ...

The use of the term "anti-gay" rather than "pro-family" or "pro-traditional marriage" ...

President Obama golfing, or wearing a light-colored suit, or being in the Oval Office without a jacket on, or bowing to the leader of a foreign nation ...


Shall I continue, or have I made my point?

[BlaqueKatt]

Shall I continue, or have I made my point?

You, I like.

[mjr]

Billboards with atheist messages ...

When they're intentionally meant to be disparaging or mocking, it's reasonable to see why someone could be offended.

The construction of a "Festivus Pole" in front of a Christmas nativity scene ...

Why "in front of"? That was probably the issue.

The "overuse" of secular images instead of religious ones during Christmas and Easter ...

Here comes Santa Claus, Here comes Santa Claus, right down Santa Claus Lane...

The whole "Dixie Chicks" controversy, or any other criticism of the U.S. President (especially a Republican one), government, or military during a time of war ...

The problem wasn't, in my opinion, what they said, but where they said it.

Any complaints of American police departments being racist ...

Well, you know, I can see people being offended by that, especially if it's phrased as though every officer in every department is racist.

Bulletin boards encouraging people to examine their "privilege" ...

The "white privilege", I assume?

President Obama failing to salute a Marine before boarding the Marine One helicopter, even though, by protocol, the President, as a civilian, is not even supposed to salute military personnel ...

That hasn't stopped other Presidents -- Republican or Democrat. Aside from that, the President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. So I'd assume technically that doesn't make him a "civilian", does it?

A painting of three firefighters raising an American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center, but which depicted the firefighters as three different ethnicities rather than all Caucasian ... although, admittedly, in real life, the three firefighters who actually did raise the U.S. flag over Ground Zero were all Caucasian ...

So you can admittedly understand why people were offended by that.

So what about "microaggressions" or "safe zones" on college campuses? Those are the same sorts of things. Both the whole "microaggression" thing and "safe zone" things are stupid, in my opinion.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Ahh liberals and conseravatives: playing the "I'm not touching you game" while maintaining the facade of adulthood on the internet since the '90's.

Actually, I watched a different video from a Yale professor (not sure what I did with it) that had the rather crazy claim recently that humans are better without empathy. It seemed ridiculous at the time, but it boiled down to the difference between humans in a village vs. humans as a global society. Essentially empathy results in a logical short circuit wherin by empathizing with a small group it causes as a natural function poor decision making. That is, empathy for ones side necessarily often causes continual escalation and destablization. It's really noticeable in politics both in this conversation or in actual governance where a political party gets elected and fails to account that they are also representatives for those not of their political party. Hence it's better for both sides to fail to govern entirely (empathetic to constituents) and less good to actually perform governmental function (without empathy, what actually needs to be done right now - alternately empathy to people that aren't like you.)

I kind of wrote it off, but the collegiate liberal thought side of me sort of sees stuff like this and basically sees two sides completely baffled by the concept of plurality. It honestly was flabergasting when I was watching liberals assail free speech. But as got pointed out upthread, conservatives do more than their fair share of it.

[Rageaholic]

Anthony is right though. The far right has been pulling this shit for a long time (and they still do, remember the starbucks cup outrage?). It's just that lately, the left has doing this just as much.

[Valinor]

the President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. So I'd assume technically that doesn't make him a "civilian", does it?

You assume wrong. The President is a civilian, and according to protocol, he is not required, and in fact, not allowed to salute military personnel. Up until the 1980s, no U.S. President saluted military personnel. Not even Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he was a five-star general before becoming President.

Ronald Reagan was the one who started the practice of the President returning salutes, mainly because he felt uncomfortable not doing it. Reagan's military aide, John Kline, advised him that it was against protocol. But General Robert Barrow, the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, basically told Reagan that if, as President, he wanted to salute the troops, nobody was likely to make a fuss about it. That was how it started. But the official protocol hasn't changed, and many people still argue that it's improper for the President to salute military personnel.

The most common opinion is that the President doesn't have to salute, but he can if he wants to, and no U.S. soldiers facing their Commander-in-Chief are likely to complain about it either way.

EDIT :

Okay, I was wrong. Eisenhower did salute military personnel. Not often, apparently, but sometimes.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ower-saluted-/

The information I was relying on when I originally wrote this post came from several articles and Op-Eds that I had looked up online, including from retired military officers, which stated that prior to Ronald Reagan, Presidents never saluted military personnel. They actually mentioned Eisenhower specifically (and incorrectly).

It appears that Ronald Reagan wasn't the first President to salute, but he was the one who made it commonplace to do so. I apologize for my mistake. Nevertheless, based on what I've read, it still seems clear that Presidents are not required to salute military personnel, and there are, to this day, many people who argue that it's improper to do so, especially when the President in question has never served in the Armed Forces.

[s_stabeler]

I will say that I DO actually find statements that people should "examine their privilege" offensive, for a simple reason: it's often used to dismiss arguments (in other words "your opinion doesn't count because you are the child of privilege") which is legitimately offensive, since it doesn't address the underlying point. Argue what someone is saying, not who they are.

[Rageaholic]

I will say that I DO actually find statements that people should "examine their privilege" offensive, for a simple reason: it's often used to dismiss arguments (in other words "your opinion doesn't count because you are the child of privilege") which is legitimately offensive, since it doesn't address the underlying point. Argue what someone is saying, not who they are.

It's ad-hominem and those kind of arguments piss me off too. People who use such arguments are only poisoning their cause.