All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[The Cool Thatguy]

Trump is taking Hydroxychloro quine, said he has been for several weeks. Next he'll be saying he injects himself with bleach. Then, if he is still alive, we'll know he's an alien from another universe.

I suspect that the doctors injecting him are simply lying to him. I mean, this is a guy who has to be tricked into eating his veggies

[InformationGeek]

Yeah. I don't believe for a second he is taking that drug given how it may be dangerous. Either he is lying or the doctors are lying to him.

[Tami]

Whoever is acting as Trump's Doctor, that person is going to make a public appearance in the near future to either confirm or deny this. Either way, this could get ugly.

The Doctor could risk his license if this is true. He could be brought up on charges of malpractice or even attempted poisoning.

If false, that Doctor had better be looking for another job real soon.

[The no face guy]

Ever since Watergate America has less and less trusted its government. Not helped by frequent corruption of course and the individualism pushed heavily

Right, no objection there, but I am concerned about how many people down there believe things that are not backed by any facts. Eric Trump's statement is a good example, so are the people holding up signs that say that COVID19 is a hoax. I don't know who is responsible for disseminating such tripe (Alex Jones/George Noory are most likely culprits) but it is highly irresponsible and dangerous.

[Mister Mets]

what’s an example of someone going to far in the name of political correctness?

This is a fair question.

My general rule is that it goes too far when it curbs honest discussion, when individuals face professional repercussions for saying things reasonable people could believe, when the pushback is reprehensible, especially to non-extreme viewpoints, or when arguments that something should not exist get amplified.

There were some anecdotes from Chait's article in New York magazine.

Around 2 a.m. on December 12, four students approached the apartment of Omar Mahmood, a Muslim student at the University of Michigan, who had recently published a column in a school newspaper about his perspective as a minority on campus. The students, who were recorded on a building surveillance camera wearing baggy hooded sweatshirts to hide their identity, littered Mahmood’s doorway with copies of his column, scrawled with messages like “You scum embarrass us,” “Shut the fuck up,” and “DO YOU EVEN GO HERE?! LEAVE!!” They posted a picture of a demon and splattered eggs.This might appear to be the sort of episode that would stoke the moral conscience of students on a progressive campus like Ann Arbor, and it was quickly agreed that an act of biased intimidation had taken place. But Mahmood was widely seen as the perpetrator rather than the victim. His column, published in the school’s conservative newspaper, had spoofed the culture of taking offense that pervades the campus. Mahmood satirically pretended to denounce “a white cis-gendered hetero upper-class man” who offered to help him up when he slipped, leading him to denounce “our barbaric attitude toward people of left-handydnyss.” The gentle tone of his mockery was closer to Charlie Brown than to Charlie Hebdo.The Michigan Daily, where Mahmood also worked as a columnist and film critic, objected to the placement of his column in the conservative paper but hardly wanted his satirical column in its own pages. Mahmood later said that he was told by the editor that his column had created a “hostile environment,” in which at least one Daily staffer felt threatened, and that he must write a letter of apology to the staff. When he refused, the Daily fired him, and the subsequent vandalism of his apartment served to confirm his status as thought-criminal.

You may remember when 6,000 people at the University of California–Berkeley signed a petition last year to stop a commencement address by Bill Maher, who has criticized Islam (along with nearly all the other major world religions). Or when protesters at Smith College demanded the cancellation of a commencement address by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, blaming the organization for “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.” Also last year, Rutgers protesters scared away Condoleezza Rice; others at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s-rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam; and those at Haverford successfully protested *former Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who was disqualified by an episode in which the school’s police used force against Occupy protesters.

He noted the response to the murders at Charlie Hedbo, where the media acquiesced to the concerns of the killers.

The recent mass murder of the staff members of Charlie Hebdo in Paris was met with immediate and unreserved fury and grief across the full range of the American political system. But while outrage at the violent act briefly united our generally quarrelsome political culture, the quarreling quickly resumed over deeper fissures. Were the slain satirists martyrs at the hands of religious fanaticism, or bullying spokesmen of privilege? Can the offensiveness of an idea be determined objectively, or only by recourse to the identity of the person taking offense? On Twitter, “Je Suis Charlie,” a slogan heralding free speech, was briefly one of the most popular news hashtags in history. But soon came the reactions (“Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie”) from those on the left accusing the newspaper of racism and those on the right identifying the cartoons as hate speech. Many media companies, including the New York Times, have declined to publish the cartoons the terrorists deemed offensive, a stance that has attracted strident criticism from some readers. These sudden, dramatic expressions of anguish against insensitivity and oversensitivity come at a moment when large segments of American culture have convulsed into censoriousness.

Andrew Sullivan had some different examples in another article for New York.

As for objective reality, I was at an event earlier this week — not on a campus — when I made what I thought was the commonplace observation that Jim Crow laws no longer exist. Uncomprehending stares came back at me. What planet was I on? Not only does Jim Crow still exist, but slavery itself never went away! When I questioned this assertion by an African-American woman, I was told it was “not my place” to question her reality. After all, I’m white.

Dopey examples are the pushbacks against publishers for having white writers telling stories about other groups. The apex is when Kirkus Reviews was criticized for dared give a positive review to a book about terrible things happening to Muslim Americans that wasn't written by a Muslim.

He noted an effort to prevent an article at Harpers's because it was seen as too critical of #metoo.

Yes, this is not about the First Amendment. The government is not preventing anyone from speaking. But it is about the spirit of the First Amendment. One of the reasons I defended Katie Roiphe against a campaign to preemptively suppress an essay of hers (even to the point of attempting to sabotage an entire issue of Harper’s) is because of this spirit. She may be wrong, but that does not make her a hobgoblin whose career needs to be ended. And the impulse to intimidate, vilify, ruin, and abuse a writer for her opinions chills open debate. This is a real-world echo of the campus habit of disrupting speakers, no-platforming conservatives, and shouting people down. But now this reflexive hostility to speech is actually endorsed by writers and editors. Journalism itself has become a means of intimidating journalists.

I can understand the argument that these examples of politically correct behavior are dumb and not representative of the left, although that would have more power if more on the left openly took that position.

[Mister Mets]

But it is established. The majority of Republicans today are exactly what WBE said they were. It doesn't matter that there are a few Republicans here and there who are respectable or that there were a lot of respectable Republicans decades ago. Both those facts are irrelevant to the question asked.

Except that you rarely if ever address said disgusting behavior within your party or on the "right" in general.

Instead you focus your criticism on the "left" and posit strawman arguments against "political correctness".

I'd even go so far as to say that many who rail against political correctness find that kind of behavior acceptable and even enjoyable as a visit to almost any non-moderated forum would quickly prove.

The constant "both sides" arguments don't hold up in the face of real evidence -- it's just more proof that you support Trump's ideologies more than you are willing to acknowledge.

I don't believe you can argue in good faith that it's possible that I've never addressed poor Republican behavior, or criticized Republicans in these threads (the objective goal post when you say that I "rarely if ever address said disgusting behavior" is that it has to be possible for you to conclude that I have not once addressed bad behavior by any Republican official.) I've consistently backed Biden over Trump, and said why.

This is also a criticism that doesn't address the substance of my original point.

As I've said before, if you ask a non-loaded question I'll do my best to answer.

And this is how many on the "right" are perceived based on both their behavior and actions.

That would be a valid point if you think this were the correct way to perceive the over 50,000,000+ Americans on the right.

I see. Then like a stereotypical Republican, you have a blind loyalty based in denying the facts. Because all of the things I listed are true right now.

I'm pretty sure that you're aware that you could have phrased the question in a less loaded way.

Would you prefer Democrats be defined in a similar way? There's more evidence by your standard that Democrats support atheist socialists who want open borders (which I will agree is a morally superior position to white supremacy, but still not a popular one.)

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump is taking Hydroxychloro quine, said he has been for several weeks. Next he'll be saying he injects himself with bleach. Then, if he is still alive, we'll know he's an alien from another universe.

Do tell. Now, didn’t Trump say the virus was a Democratic hoax? Now he’s taking shit that’s just as unproven at curing COVID-19 as Clorox. I wonder if Mopey Mike is downing Hydroxy? If he is, he should stop, because he might have to assume the big chair should Trump suddenly kick the bucket.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Whoever is acting as Trump's Doctor, that person is going to make a public appearance in the near future to either confirm or deny this. Either way, this could get ugly.

The Doctor could risk his license if this is true. He could be brought up on charges of malpractice or even attempted poisoning.

If false, that Doctor had better be looking for another job real soon.

trump's incompetence is making his doctor look incompetent.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Whoever is acting as Trump's Doctor, that person is going to make a public appearance in the near future to either confirm or deny this. Either way, this could get ugly.

The Doctor could risk his license if this is true. He could be brought up on charges of malpractice or even attempted poisoning.

If false, that Doctor had better be looking for another job real soon.

This presupposes that doctor will be made available for questioning. My guess is he won’t.

[aja_christopher]

I don't believe you can argue in good faith that it's possible that I've never addressed poor Republican behavior, or criticized Republicans in these threads (the objective goal post when you say that I "rarely if ever address said disgusting behavior" is that it has to be possible for you to conclude that I have not once addressed bad behavior by any Republican official.) I've consistently backed Biden over Trump, and said why.

This is also a criticism that doesn't address the substance of my original point.

As I've said before, if you ask a non-loaded question I'll do my best to answer.

That would be a valid point if you think this were the correct way to perceive the over 50,000,000+ Americans on the right.

I said "rarely" not "never" -- yet again you dodge what was stated directly by misrepresenting my argument.

And aren't you the same individual who claimed that the "left" wants "open borders" because a small number of them promoted the idea in public?

Yet that same logic somehow doesn't apply to the hundreds of right-wing white nationalists repeatedly marching in the streets?

Much less those Republicans elected to the White House and continue to support in Congress?

I can easily argue in "good faith" that your bias overwhelms any real objective discussion to be had with regards to Republicans and Democrats.

Just as I can easily argue that there is no real comparison to be made with regards to extremist "political correctness" on the "left" vs extremist racism, bigotry, homophobia and violence on the "right" -- it took you nearly fifteen pages to even address the fact that your party engages in voter suppression so I'm far beyond the point of expecting objectivity any time I engage in a discussion with you on such issues.

It's also easy to point out that "political correctness" is a direct response to said racism, bigotry, homophobia and violence in our society so if that's your real concern then you should address it at the source -- apparently you don't seem to understand that the lack thereof is exactly why "politically incorrect" (i.e. racist, sexist, and bigoted) individuals like Trump continue to flourish in your party.

Or maybe you do and don't really care -- either way the results are the same.

[4saken1]

The problem with Sanders is that he doesn't win -- AOC might be able to pull it off eventually but Sanders simply doesn't have it in him.

Neither do any Progressive candidates for the most part, except in districts with a 20+% disparity of the number of liberals over conservatives. Progressives are a growing faction within the Democratic Party, but they are far from gaining enough support to produce viable candidates on the national level. While I certainly admire AOC, and she polls well in her district, her numbers in national polls are quite different.

[Tami]

This presupposes that doctor will be made available for questioning. My guess is he won’t.

This doctor letter the White House just released doesn’t actual include the doctor saying he prescribed Trump hydroxy***********

Twitter Link

[AnakinFlair]

Or not....

Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot



Did Droopy Dogg turn on his master with those comments?

Of course not. If they investigate, they will find it's all a load of crap. By not investigating, they can keep lying without any of those pesky facts getting in the way.

[aja_christopher]

Neither do any Progressive candidates for the most part, except in districts with a 20+% disparity of the number of liberals over conservatives. Progressives are a growing faction within the Democratic Party, but they are far from gaining enough support to produce viable candidates on the national level. While I certainly admire AOC, and she polls well in her district, her numbers in national polls are quite different.

The logical thing to do is to utilize the Democrats who can win elections to take the White House and the Senate and then promote more progressive policies from a position of power.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Neither do any Progressive candidates for the most part, except in districts with a 20+% disparity of the number of liberals over conservatives. Progressives are a growing faction within the Democratic Party, but they are far from gaining enough support to produce viable candidates on the national level. While I certainly admire AOC, and she polls well in her district, her numbers in national polls are quite different.

She's also got a steeper hill to climb since she's 1) a woman and 2) can't pass for white.