(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Conversely, an animating thesis of much of today's left over the last decade or more has been that men, whites and/or Christians are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy, and that America and the world need to marginalize them. It's a view that's every bit as silly as the one you criticize, but also (like the other view) an unfortunately popular one, with seemingly no limit to its adherents' capacity for self-rationalization -- even when they have to invent words to do so. And unfortunately, many Hillary supporters and anti-Trump people don't get just how silly a view it is.

I've always been a bit amazed at this view and how people use logic to get there.

I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As a white male, I don't think I've ever felt marginalized for being a white male, but I guess I shouldn't use personal experience to color my opinion on such a large issue.

I am quite sure that you know many people (as do I) who have experienced many occasions in which they have been explicitly told that they, their views, their tastes or their history are inferior, illegitimate, or otherwise undesirable because they are white and/or male. And those are just personal cases; they don't begin to touch on the fads, fetishes and indoctrinations pervading academia, entertainment and other realms.

Not long ago, I opined that Colin Kaepernick's kissing his bicep on touchdowns is, like Aaron Rodgers' touchdown "dance", kinda dumb. To any rational observer, that is not an unreasonable or inflammatory comment, and certainly not a racially tinged one. Nevertheless, in response, a communications professor told me that I am a "white motherf...", followed by "You have no humanity" and "You are offensive and stupid." This professor was supported by a mutual admiration society of like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Not long before that, I opined that campaigning to shut down an art exhibit may not be the wisest stance for artists to take. In response, a so-called artist claimed that I have no right to an opinion on the subject, because I am white and the people demanding the shutdown are black. Again, the person who proclaimed this view was enthusiastically echoed by like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Earlier this year, a biology professor announced to me and others that her family's Christmas dinner is superior to that of other families precisely because her family does it without believing in Christianity. She was echoed by a mutual admiration society of overtly anti-Christian academics.

These people are not just garden-variety bigots. They are proud leftists, who think it not merely justified but important to make creed or skin color a key premise of their attacks -- confident that their bigotry is actually a form of political virtue, and certain that they will receive more admiration than caution from their fellow leftists. Their bigotry is rooted in and part of their leftism. This is not all of modern leftism by any means it, but it is too much of it.

One can argue that marginalizing certain demographics is worse than others, but it's hard to argue that efforts to marginalize other demographics are good, or that such efforts don't exist.

I assume that you're equally concerned than with the race-baiting side on the right that probably makes up the same percentage? Those that scream "Jew-S-A" at journalists, openly assault people being escorted out of political rallies, or who use racial slurs to denigrate others, right?

Those incidents you mention are pretty awful and don't really belong in a modern society as they don't leave room for those who have different ideas and beliefs. And the holiday story sounds like something right out of an internet chat room. Which university did that take place at, because that is not the mindset professors should be using when teaching students?

I think it's fairly safe to assume that most of the conservatives or moderately conservatives on this board cringe at the incidents you describe. However, their are 'intellectual' ways to not leave room for different ideas and beliefs. Because they are clothed in perceived moral superiority and are non-violent they are acceptable.

You can lynch people socially or professionally.

I've met people who believe things that I believe are wrong and you may feel are terrible and unjustified. But in their actions and dealings with people they treat people appropriately and their actions individually don't correspond to their stated beliefs.

I think there is a clear distinction between beliefs and actions/behaviors.

The Constitution clearly differentiates the two. We have freedom of belief, expression, speech. However we also have criminal laws that guarantee the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It should be OK to be pro-life (to whatever degree you are, and there are degrees), as long as you don't attack or infringe upon the rights of others. i.e., focus on the issue, not individuals. I have a position that is left of the far right, but not in line with the far left either. I would feel uncomfortable expressing my views on the issue, because, based on my experiences in the past, it would result in me being verbally and morally attacked as an individual. In fairness, I'm sure moderate pro-choice advocates feel the same way.

Modern society is bound and determined to try and outlaw being offended, and to go beyond protecting improper treatment of others to 'criminalizing' or shouting down beliefs.

What George is alluding to, is that in the rush to eliminate prejudice, we often eliminate free discussion that most effectively counters prejudice, and have in turn tolerated or approved counter-prejudice.

We tend to judge people we don't know in light of our perception of their belief on one issue or another. The person or groups of people have no identity for us, other than that one issue.

It's how an otherwise educated person can coin a phrase like "deplorables".

Is Donald Trump prejudiced (bearing in mine I've already identified him as unfit for the office of President? Based on some stated beliefs, most of us would assume so.

However, when Hillary used the term 'deplorables' most of us have a pretty good picture of the demographic she was trying to portray. There is every bit as much judgment and prejudice implicit in that term as Donald Trump's worst pronouncements. She is reducing a group of people to a position or belief set, lumping them together without regard to who they are as individuals, life experiences and whatever positive traits they might have beyond their political position.

Since I don't support Trump (and as an individual almost certainly don't fit a number of other aspects that draw her ire) I guess I'm not included in that group. But my demographic (white, male, Christian) certainly is the distinguishing 'characteristic of the picture she created in everyone's mind when she coined the phrase.

And there is a sizable percentage of the population that believes she was right and 100% justified in using that label.