So where is George Will wrong here?

[Lindsay B.]

Shall I continue, or have I made my point?

For the record, I'm still kind of unhappy that you chose not to include the backlash against the short film "Love Is All You Need?" in your list. I thought it would have been a perfect example.

(FYI : If anybody here follows that link to read that thread, bear in mind that it was written almost a year ago. Also, some of the page links in it are invalid by now.)

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 ...

I absolutely loved that commercial. I thought it was just so beautiful. As for the controversy surrounding it, it was for me one of those odd moments - I couldn't believe that people would get so angry over something so sweet, and at the same time, I was not at all surprised that they did. You know how people are.

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

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

If this is about what I think it is, the Festivus Pole was actually next to the nativity scene, not in front of it. When Gretchen Carlson (of FOX News) complained about the baby Jesus being "behind the Festivus Pole," she was exaggerating because she wanted to make a point. Carlson just didn't like the idea of the Festivus Pole being constructed in the same area as the nativity scene, and also near Christmas time. She said that the Pole could have been displayed in a different place and at a different time.

One of Carlson's guests, David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, argued that the holiday season belongs to everyone, not just Christians alone. He said that there was no wrong way to celebrate the holiday, and added that "Christianity stole the season from the Solstice."

The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, a Republican, approved the construction of the Festivus Pole, along with the Christmas display, in a public area at the Florida State Capitol Building. I don't know what his personal feelings were on the Festivus Pole, but the reality is that he probably couldn't have refused it even if he wanted to. Once his office authorized the Christmas display, they basically opened the door to any kind of religious or non-religious holiday display in that designated area. Refusing to approve the Festivus Pole would have undoubtedly landed Governor Scott in court.

Now, I will say that, in my opinion, constructing the Festivus Pole out of beer cans was really tacky. In subsequent years, the artist designed the Pole in rainbow colors, as a tribute to Gay Pride and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Much better, much more tasteful.

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.

Not necessarily. It's a matter of what exactly the painting was intended to memorialize. The raising of the American flag over the site of the World Trade Center was significant, not for the act itself - there is nothing noteworthy about the physical action of raising a flag - but for what it represented. It was an act of defiance against terrible devastation. It represented victory over adversity, rising up against any challenge. It was a declaration that the American spirit, the human spirit, could not be crushed. It was a poignant symbol of strength, resistance, freedom, and hope. That one moment captured the strength of the American people, and the courage of all of the firefighters, police, paramedics, everybody who risked their lives that day, in the face of an unimaginable tragedy.

When those three firefighters raised that flag, they were acting on behalf of all of the people of New York, all of the people of the United States. I think that the decision to depict the three firefighters in the painting as racially diverse (one white, one black, and one Hispanic) was intended to symbolize that the three firefighters themselves were representatives of all of the American people. However, not everyone saw it that way. There was a firestorm of protest (the phrase "political correctness gone mad" was used quite a lot) that ultimately led to the plan being scrapped. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the decision. I do understand the feelings on both sides.

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

I understand where you're coming from. Believe me. But Anthony said "bulletin boards," which probably means he was referring to things like this. Now, for the record, I sympathize with the people who criticized that board. I believe that the student who put it up was well-intentioned, and probably had some worthwhile things to say, but I agree that there are much better ways that he could have made his point.

With that said, I think Anthony was referring to people being encouraged to examine the ways in which they are privileged in society and try to understand the viewpoints of others who are not so fortunate, not to the way that people abuse the idea of "privilege" to shut down other people's arguments or dismiss their viewpoints, which I certainly do agree is wrong.

a political party gets elected and fails to account that they are also representatives for those not of their political party

I can think of one very good example of this, that is happening right now. After North Carolina passed their Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, more commonly known as HB2, there was a huge backlash against the state from major corporations, sports associations, and entertainers who objected to how the law discriminated against the LGBT community, as well as adversely affected workers, disabled people, veterans, and those affected by other forms of discrimination (besides sexual orientation and gender identity).

Now, I give neither praise nor condemnation to companies like Paypal, whose supposedly principled support of the LGBT community compels them to boycott North Carolina, and yet doesn't seem to prohibit them from doing business with 25 countries where homosexuality is illegal, including 5 countries where it is punishable by death.

What does concern me about Paypal's pulling out of North Carolina is that it will deny hundreds of jobs to the people of Charlotte, which is the very city whose attempts to protect the rights of the LGBT community were what sparked all of this in the first place. And there are at least two other major organizations that are pulling out of Charlotte because of HB2, despite the fact that Charlotte was the city that was trying to fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

It gets worse. I have read that, ironically, the areas of North Carolina that are being hardest hit by the backlash against HB2 are actually progressive, left-leaning cities that tend to be friendly to the LGBT community. Apparently, according to some observers, this was part of the Republicans' political calculus.

The GOP legislators who passed HB2 don't care about the backlash against North Carolina, because it mainly hurts people who don't support the Republicans, anyway.

[Anthony K. S.]

it's reasonable to see why someone could be offended

You know, you could assemble a list of 25 different arguably silly things that liberals have gotten angry over, and a similar list of 25 arguably silly things that conservatives have gotten angry over ... and there is a very good chance that any given person, here or elsewhere, would be able to find at least a few things on both lists that they would actually view as legitimate grievances.

Everybody has different opinions on this. Truth be told, I don't even consider everything on that list to be a silly thing to get worked up over, but I know that for each item on that list, there are people who do.

The point I was trying to make is that it is hypocritical for George Will to mock liberals and progressives for being "perpetually offended," as if that's something unique to the left, when conservatives, like George Will, have frequently been just as "perpetually offended."

And your argument basically seems to be, "Yeah, but those conservatives had a good reason!"

Well, you might want to consider this ... Everybody who complains about something always thinks that they have a good reason. The people who object to the name "Redskins" think they have a good reason, too.

It doesn't mean they're right, although, of course, they are entitled to express their views, as are their opponents.

Also, as has been pointed out, George Will was basically creating a large strawman argument, making little effort to understand the issues he was mocking, and painting all progressives with a single brush.

There are, in fact, some progressives who have criticized the "political correctness" culture, who have argued against the positions that other progressives have taken, and even supported conservative positions at times.

It would be as unfair for me to claim that the people railing against the song "America the Beautiful" being sung in any language other than English, or who condemn any sympathetic depiction of a gay couple or a Muslim person, or who pitch a fit whenever somebody says "Happy Holidays," or who labelled anybody who criticized George W. Bush or the Iraq War as being anti-American, or who was outraged at the sight of Barack Obama in a tan-colored suit, actually represented ALL conservatives. I don't.

I understand that not all conservatives agree on all things. Does George Will understand that not all progressives do, either?

[Anthony K. S.]

For the record, I'm still kind of unhappy that you chose not to include the backlash against the short film "Love Is All You Need?" in your list. I thought it would have been a perfect example.

That was different.

There is no question that the controversy surrounding that film was primarily because of its pro-gay message, but there was also significant concern over the fact that it was simply too graphic for a young audience.

The latter objection was not unique to conservatives, and it was also, I personally felt, a very valid concern for parents whose children were shown the film in school (and so did you, as I recall).

There were several other, more unequivocal, cases of conservative outrage over pro-gay messages for me to cite as examples.

I absolutely loved that commercial. I thought it was just so beautiful. As for the controversy surrounding it, it was for me one of those odd moments - I couldn't believe that people would get so angry over something so sweet, and at the same time, I was not at all surprised that they did. You know how people are.

I think Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, did a great job of skewering the outrage over that commercial.

Jon Stewart : ... That upset people? Were they bothered by the dangerous levels of schmaltz? Because I will grant you, if there was a Precious Moments figurine where an orphan handed a puppy to a kindly soldier, with the title "I WUV AMERICA," it would be less sappy than that ad.

When somebody complained about immigrants "not assimilating" into American culture :

Jon Stewart : Not assimilating? They're singing "America the Beautiful" while drinking Coca-Cola! How much more American assimilation could they have? Maybe if they were open carrying a gun shaped like Jesus while using a bald eagle strap-on to fuck an apple pie, but for God's sake ...

[s_stabeler]

I understand where you're coming from. Believe me. But Anthony said "bulletin boards," which probably means he was referring to things like this. Now, for the record, I sympathize with the people who criticized that board. I believe that the student who put it up was well-intentioned, and probably had some worthwhile things to say, but I agree that there are much better ways that he could have made his point.

With that said, I think Anthony was referring to people being encouraged to examine the ways in which they are privileged in society and try to understand the viewpoints of others who are not so fortunate, not to the way that people abuse the idea of "privilege" to shut down other people's arguments or dismiss their viewpoints, which I certainly do agree is wrong.

actually, the ironic thing is, that bulletin board was supposed to be a parody.

anyway, I actually disagree with you- or rather, it makes the issue unnecessarily confrontational. (asking people to "check your privledge" more-or less implies that everyone is inherently racist)

By all means bring up a situation which is racist, but don't tar everyone with a broad brush.

[Canarr]

I agree with Lindsay B.: the basic intent of "check your privilege" is a sensible one - to remind people that not everbody has the same background and the same experiences, and that other people who haven't had my privileges growing up may have different views on things than I do. The way I see it, the original message of "check your privilege" was one of inclusion: it said, "remember that someone else's experiences are valid, even if you cannot understand them because they are different from yours."

The problem is that it can very easily be altered into a message of exclusion instead: "you are privileged, so you are not allowed to comment on this issue!". It can quickly go from, "all experiences are valid" to, "only the experiences we accept are valid". And that is, frankly, an abuse of the concept and the idea behind it.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well you run in to a big problem with feminism (or any ism in general) which is can academic concepts survive the use by the uneducated or the self serving. I haven't met an ism that could.

The problem with those phrases as you point out is both mansplain and "check your privilege" slide so easily into flat ad hominem that you're basically wishing on the good nature of others to not abuse them. But hell, I read an article on xoJane about her issues with mansplain as a term and even while she's making a completely different case, she's essentially copping to the cathartic nature of shutting annoying guys down with them.

I tend to think pithy expressions of objectional behavior never work in the long run. They're always abused. Mansplain is an exceptionally tricky one though because when its used, there's no defense that looks good. Should the guy argue how it wasn't? I'm sure that'll work.

[mjr]

Well, the problem as far as "mansplaining" goes is that there's usually a level of condescension involved. A man can explain something to a woman without being condescending.

Why isn't the opposite true? Why isn't there "womansplaining"? I'd think the same general concept would apply.

And for that matter, can a man actually "mansplain" to another man?

If I have a friend who doesn't like or follow sports, and I hold up an American football and say to him "This is a football", is that mansplaining?

I'm assuming it would be if I did it to a woman, even with the same tone of voice.

I'm not a Packers fan, but there's a story that Vince Lombardi did that to his entire team during one season. He gathered them all together at the beginning of the season, and said something like, "Men, this is a football. This is a football field. You're the players. I'm the coach."

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Except condescension is a perceived thing, not necessarily an objective thing. Often most people would agree on some of it and disagree on quite a bit more.

I don't have a problem with mansplain as a concept or even in being used. As a systemic pattern, its pretty valid.

I do think it is an exceptionally shifty word though when in the course of a single argument between two people it is beneficial to destroy the ethos of one's opponent by finding this sort of fault. Once you've normalized the ad hominem, if one IS concerned with winning than it is in at least one's sides best interest to be as liberal as possible with the definition of "condescending." They need not be conscious of that bias either. It is really the more academic or the more principled person that's going to be judicious because they are regulating themselves, not their opponent.

[Rageaholic]

I tend to think pithy expressions of objectional behavior never work in the long run. They're always abused. Mansplain is an exceptionally tricky one though because when its used, there's no defense that looks good. Should the guy argue how it wasn't? I'm sure that'll work.

That sounds similar to a kafkatrap; denial of guilt is seen as proof of guilt. You're either guilty and admit it or you're guilty and in denial. It's a false dichotomy and begging the question fallacy that leaves no option of innocence. Likely a favorite tactic of abusive, power-tripping ass wipes.

And don't get me started on "Tone Policing", especially from people who want to tell you which words to use.

[Canarr]

That sounds similar to a kafkatrap; denial of guilt is seen as proof of guilt. You're either guilty and admit it or you're guilty and in denial. It's a false dichotomy and begging the question fallacy that leaves no option of innocence. Likely a favorite tactic of abusive, power-tripping ass wipes.

That is the problem, yes. If you accept this concept - that one group of people may dictate the terms of the debate - then of course it becomes ripe for abuse and attempts to stifle opposing views.

I remember reading a discussion thread somewhere on the history of the pink triangle during the Third Reich. The (self-proclaimed) gay OP in the thread gave some figures - I think it was total number of people murdered - and another poster disagreed with him, citing different figures.

The OP then proceeded to declare that he didn't need to listen to a "hete" lecture him on the pink triangle, because he was homosexual, and would have been forced to wear one if he'd been living at that time, and probably killed, so his opinion was more valid than any heterosexuals.

The other poster pointed out that it wasn't about opinions, but about historical figures, and it went predictably downhill from there. But I never understood how someone could seriously argue like that - I'm gay, therefore I'm right?

Disclaimer: this was just an example I remembered that seemed to fit; I am in no way trying to make any kind of statement about gay people in general. Or straigt people in general. Just, maybe, stupid people in general...

[Valinor]

it is hypocritical for George Will to mock liberals and progressives for being "perpetually offended," as if that's something unique to the left, when conservatives, like George Will, have frequently been just as "perpetually offended"

I doubt that there is any negative character trait that is unique to either liberals or conservatives. But it's always somewhat amusing when somebody tries to claim that there is. Probably the most absurd example I've ever seen of this took place during the 2008 Presidential election.

Some idiot in Los Angeles constructed a Halloween display, with an effigy (specifically, a life-sized doll) of Sarah Palin in a hangman's noose. Many people, both liberal and conservative, rightly condemned the display as unacceptable, for its implied advocacy (real or perceived) of violence.

But I remember one observer who used the incident to smear all liberals, and implied that it was proof that conservatives were morally superior, saying, "A Republican would never do this."

... Really.

August 29, 1994 - Owensboro, KY - Crowd of over 100 people burn an effigy of Hillary Clinton

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.

I presume that Gravekeeper is referring to this Op-Ed that George Will wrote in the Washington Post in 2014.

" ... when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate ... "

There was a conservative blogger who remarked, "Mr. Will, if you wanted to end your career, there are a lot less messy ways to do it. Like showing up for work drunk, or pushing your boss down a flight of stairs."

I could not help noticing that, at one point, the Huffington Post had several articles and Op-Eds responding to George Will, and they keyworded them with George Will's name and the subject word "rape." The thing is, the Huffington Post just put them together in a single line, and it wound up looking like this :

The Huffington Post / News / George Will Rape

... I hope they didn't do that on purpose.

To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with everything that George Will wrote in that Op-Ed, but the stuff he said that I do disagree with, especially that "coveted status" line, is so repulsive that it's difficult for me to even touch this.