Here is the conversation that MP just would not let me join. And I fund it so fascinating...
"First, it is worth noting that Sander’s and Trump’s appeal are about the same: promise the moon and people will believe it.
Second, Sullivan correctly noticed that “political correctness” did indeed create Trump because it breeds more resentment, more racism, and more alienation in people who are injured by the economy and insulted all the time in addition to it. It is impossible to blame Republican establishment for creating Trump by being anti-Obama; it is easy to blame Obama because he is an embodiment of political correctness.
And finally, the sky is not falling. Comparing modern day America to Weimar Republic is ridiculous. First, Germany was failing economically and America is not (yet, provided we don’t start building socialism per Bernie). Muslims and Mexicans are not new Jews because there is no historical basis for hatred towards them like there was towards Jews (2000 years of anti-Semitism).
And Trump is not that much anti-immigrant (I personally do not remember his anti-immigrant statements, just anti-illegal immigrant ones, which is very different). And of course all examples of countries sliding into dictatorships are irrelevant since not a single one of them had had any significant experience with democracy prior to those events. In fact, a transition from republic to empire in Ancient Rome would be a much better example…" Ilya
"The notion that "political correctness" created this situation is a canard. What people who are complaining about "political correctness" are complaining about is that people are noticing, disliking, and taking action against their bigotry.
You can debate illegal immigration without calling Mexicans murderers and rapists. You can debate LGBT rights without comparing it to bestiality or suggesting that LGBT folks are sexual predators. You can be opposed to President Obama without making a monkey doll out of him or suggesting he's a secret Kenyan Muslim.
For all the nonsense about whether or not Obama (the "embodiment of political correctness") calls it "radical Islamic terrorism", he sure sure doesn't have a problem raining bombs down on them (in at least six countries so far)
(And there's no historical basis for hatred against Muslims? Really? We're 1,000 years downstream from the start of the Crusades, you know.)" Sean
""Muslims and Mexicans are not new Jews because there is no historical basis for hatred towards them like there was towards Jews (2000 years of anti-Semitism)."
Was there ever a historical "basis" for hatred towards the Jews?
Are you saying it's not really hatred unless it goes on for a certain number of years?" RB
"Mr. Olsen, your assumption about bigotry of entire chunk of population is unfair and an oversimplification. I can of course say that you can complain about all those people without calling them bigots and racists or I can say that their feelings are the result of things pushed down their throats.
So yes, we can debate illegal immigration without calling Mexicans names but we can also debate it without offending those who are against it; we can debate LGBT without calling them names but let’s not call opponents of same sex marriage names either; and while there is no reason to call Obama names, there is equally no reason to call all Republicans names… And I will encourage you to look what is happening more often on college campuses…
Sure, we are a 1000 years past Crusades and about the same time past Arab’s expansion and conquering huge territories including parts of Europe; I just don’t see any relevance of these facts to our discussion. Have you heard of Muslim pogroms? Blood libel against them? How many Muslims were forced to convert under the threat of being burned alive? How many were expelled from European countries? How many Muslims were killed in genocide?
Mr. Holbrook, while there was no historical basis for hatred towards the Jews, there was history of hatred towards them. Yes, I am saying that hatred to the entire people cannot take roots in one generation – it takes centuries if not millennia. Sure there are always individual haters but it is different from what happened to Jews in Germany under Nazis. Actually, even now there are more anti-Semitic episodes than anti-Muslim ones in the world…" Ilya
"Uncompelling: The notion being offered by conservatives is that "political correctness" prevents us from addressing critical issues. What I haven't seen is a compelling explanation of how that is the case. You yourself indicated that we can discuss controversial issues without name-calling.
Can you give me more of an explanation of how this is so? (I'll stipulate that both sides engage in name-calling AND both sides at times engage in behaviors designed to stifle the speech of those opposed to them.)
Have Republicans have some changes forced upon them that they didn't like? Sure. But, that's the nature of the way things go. You think Democrats haven't suffered the same thing at various points in American history?
What it feels like to me is that this whining about "political correctness" goes back in some way to what I talked about in my original response -- the desire to express bigoted feelings without fear of criticism. Things like the "bathroom bills" are just primal lashing out, not reasoned policy responses to actual problems.
I'm not debating who has it worse between Jews or Muslims. Merely pointing out that there's a long history of anti-Muslim behavior out there." Sean
"You Have to be Taught to Hate:Yes, I am saying that hatred to the entire people cannot take roots in one generation – it takes centuries if not millennia."
I don't know about that. Hatred is hatred, and white Americans seemed to develop hatred towards the Indians pretty quickly. Slavery also seems like a pretty good example of hatred--that was popular with the white folks pretty quickly.
There is an old joke about the recent immigrant from Ireland who was asked what he thought of America. "I've gotten such an education in one week. When I came here, I knew I hated the British. Now, I learned I hate the [Italians], [Jews], and [African Americans], too!"
"[D]on’t you think that worse racial relations and a mess in the Middle East are Obama’s failure, just to name a couple?" I'm sure there's a good explanation for how he instigated the Shiite-Sunni conflict, but hat did the President do to worsen race relations, apart from being elected President while black?" RB
128 comments:
Labels that are often used by Liberals to describe Conservatives
bigot, zealot, fanatic, fundamentalist
xenophobe, racist, segregationist
homophobe, haters, judgmental,
heartless, unsympathetic, cruel, inhuman
greedy, selfish, corrupt
misogynist, sexist, male chauvinist,
denier, unscientific, close minded
Then there are the usual ones: stupid, illogical, etc
Definition of Bigot "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
"What it feels like to me is that this whining about "political correctness" goes back in some way to what I talked about in my original response -- the desire to express bigoted feelings without fear of criticism. Things like the "bathroom bills" are just primal lashing out, not reasoned policy responses to actual problems. " Sean
I just find it ironic that Sean accuses the Right of bigoted feelings and then plows straight ahead into obstinately and intolerantly stating his own opinions regarding the religious right folks and their views.
Now I do agree that people were pretty flexible as long as there were stalls or separate bathrooms. However the "room" got real quiet when I asked.
"As a woman are you okay if a woman who has not removed her man parts yet strips and showers with you and/or your children?"
MP Bathroom 1
MP Bathroom 2
MP Bathroom 3
MP Bathroom 4
As for hate. I don't think the Right is any more hateful than the Left.
And lately I think the Left is taking the lead. I mean look at all "extremist" Liberals who are trying to disrupt Trump's political events. And lately all the violence outside of the events.
For a group that preaches tolerance, free speech, etc, they sure are not practicing it.
And finally, the sky is not falling. Comparing modern day America to Weimar Republic is ridiculous.
I think the sky is falling. And I do find comparisons to the Weimar Republic to be quite useful. The Weimar Republic failed because huge portions of the German people, across the political spectrum, rejected it's political legitimacy. We are seeing that same sort of rejection today in so many ways, big and small. We see it frequently on this board where it is routinely argued that taxes enacted by legislative bodies are a form of theft, an argument that only makes sense if one rejects the legitimacy, the lawful authority of the institutions of government. This is not to say that Trump is some sort of modern day Hitler, or the claim made by conservative columnist George Will, that his supporters are Quislings. But what I do suggest is that our system is in peril in ways that we are just now only beginning to understand.
--Hiram
Hiram, I don't "reject the legitimacy" of the government, I just (in this one case) agree with Trump, that "our country is being run by very stupid people." And that is dangerous.
And Trump's second big reason for success is his refusal to play by the politically correct rules of tiptoeing around the victims du jour and speaking the plain (sometimes too plain) truth that the PC crowd doesn't like. So they riot, making him MORE popular.
The example I like best is people going after Trump for being anti-immigrant.
I am thinking that deport the people ILLEGALY living here and securing our border to prevent ILLEGAL immigrants is just common sense. I still find it fascinating that ~400,000 people apparently enter the country with no background checks. I would think that should scare many Americans badly.
I don't "reject the legitimacy" of the government, I just (in this one case) agree with Trump, that "our country is being run by very stupid people.
Others seem to, and it's important. Trump did it when without any reason at all he questioned the legitimacy of the Obama presidency by raising the citizenship issue. In fairness, some Democrats did it too, by raising and not fiercely rejecting similar attacks on erstwhile Republican candidate Ted Cruz.
Political leaders may or may not be stupid, but arguing that taxation is a form of theft raises issues of legitimacy and the lawfulness of authority, not the intelligence of people who enact such laws. When Trump questioned Obama's citizenship, the issue he raised was legal, it didn't have anything at all to do with the president's IQ.
--Hiram
Hiram,
As some commenters noted over at MP, comparing us to the Weimar Republic makes no sense. And after studying this I agree with them.
Stupid is as stupid does. Anyone want to suggest that spending a trillion dollars more than you take in every year, year after year, is a good idea?
I'm not saying it (welfare) is criminal theft, just that taking from some to give to others is immoral (and stupid if it doesn't help); it can still be legal (and is).
As some commenters noted over at MP, comparing us to the Weimar Republic makes no sense. And after studying this I agree with them.
In looking at the article cited, I just don't see how it proves or even suggests that comparisons to the Weimar Republic make no sense. Many of the factors it points to are present in the US today. The book I read that influenced my thinking on this is "The Coming of the Third Reich": http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Third-Reich-Richard-Evans/dp/0143034693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462626306&sr=8-1&keywords=the+coming+of+the+third+reich
--Hiram
Anyone want to suggest that spending a trillion dollars more than you take in every year, year after year, is a good idea?
Depends on how you define what "taking in" means. We spend billions on education yet children produce nothing. The little urchins don't even work weekends in blacking factories. Does that mean funding schools is a bad idea?
--Hiram
Let's look at the factors raised:
Responses to the Treaty of Versailles.
In the aftermath of WW I, a war the Germans lost without having a single enemy soldier on German lands, was seen as a betrayal of the German people by the governing class. Have we not seen a similar reaction to events since WW II. Doesn't Trump ask why are we such losers, why don't we win anymore?
Germany’s reparations burden.
Trump argues that America assumes too much of the burden of global defense excessively burdening our economy. Just like reparations burdened the German economy.
The impact of conspiracy theories.
Trump is a notorious fan of conspiracy theories. But it's not just Trump, and I would be remiss to suggest that the problem exists only on his side of the political spectrum. Don't many of us see the distribution of wealth as a conspiracy of the rich against the poor?
The Weimar Constitution. Germany’s post-war constitution has shouldered much of the blame for the political instability of the 1920s. The men who drafted the constitution in 1919 attempted to construct a political system not unlike that of the United States, incorporating democracy, federalism, checks and balances and protection of individual rights. Tellingly, they created an executive presidency who had considerable emergency powers, allowing him to bypass or override the elected Reichstag. Some historians suggest the Weimar president – with his seven year term and these hefty emergency powers – was not far removed from the former kaiser. Stalemates in the Reichstag meant the president’s emergency powers were frequently called into action, which only enhanced and worsened political divisions.
Weimar’s electoral system.
Well they do have ranked choice voting in St. Paul.
The difficulties of minority government.
We have a system that can only operate effectively with coalitions in a political environment that rejects them.
Lingering militarism, nationalism and authoritarian political values.
I have seen even liberal politicians argue that a military leader should be placed on the presidential ticket because only the military understands the challenges we face.
Hostility to democracy and parliamentarian government.
We have this in abundance.
The impact of the Great Depression.
Surely our economic problems contribute to our political crisis.
Rising support for Hitler and the Nazis.
Without claiming Trump is a Nazi, his movement does fill a similar role.
Political intriguing in 1932.
Lot of that going around too. Lots of folks are rationalizing now as they did in 1933 that putting a demagogue in charge isn't such a bad idea because we then could manage him.
“The Weimar Republic, born from monarchy and followed by dictatorship, is too often viewed only in terms of its origin and what rose from its collapse. However its life was entwined with the major developments of the 20th century and, in its own terms, it speaks to us today of changes and problems that we face. It was a noble experiment and provided many lessons in both its failures and its successes. It was a Republic of those who were willing to be reasonable, to put aside short-term self interest and work for the longer-term interests of the broader community. However not enough people supported this reasonable Republic, the first democratic state in German history.”
The author in fact agrees with me in thinking that the history of the Weimar Republic speaks to us of the problems of change which provides many lessons of both failure and success.
For customers of Netflix streaming who literally want to see what the Weimar Republic looked like, I recommend the documentary "From Caligari to Hitler" available from the service.
--Hiram
Depends on how you define what "taking in" means.
Taking in means revenues to the government. When revenues minus spending is a negative number you have a deficit. Doing it year after year leads to bankruptcy in financial terms. Failing to address it at all is bankruptcy in moral terms.
Taking in means revenues to the government
That's a way to look at it. Maybe the government should insist on revenues from stuff it spends money on, toll roads in the like. Maybe it should drive tougher bargains with the taxpayers who employ it. If it did that, it's balance sheet would improve considerably.
The leader of the Republican Party sees no moral issue with bankruptcy. He sees debt, not as an obligation to return money he has borrowed but as something to manipulate. What's more, he looks at debt that way from the outset. When he borrows money, he does it with the understanding that if economic conditions change, he will force his lenders to accept less than he received. I guess the new standard of the Republican Party that only poor and middle class people should be held to their bargains and are to be morally condemned when they do not.
--Hiram
"...without any reason at all he questioned the legitimacy of the Obama presidency by raising the citizenship issue." -- Hiram
We are talking about hate, here, and that would be "without any reason." But this was not hate because there WERE reasons to suspect Obama was not American by birth, which to this day have not been wholly laid to rest because of what many see as Obama's dodging of the issue. Now it is certainly possible this is another "Rathergate" affair, with trumped-up charges and phony documents, but arguing that this disagreement is somehow "racism" or hate strikes me as the Left hating the right so much they call them haters. Seems like the Left describes ANY disagreement with Obama as racism/hate. They cannot imagine any other reason.
Seems like the Left describes ANY disagreement with Obama as racism/hate.
What we look for is criticism that is totally unfounded, that is leveled against Obama but not against similarly situated white people. The case against John McCain's citizenship claim is considerably stronger than those against Barack Obama's yet no one made it. Why not?
But in any event, my concern here is with the attack on the legitimacy of our political institutions and I don't see that as necessarily a hate or racism issue. In Weimar Germany, the attack on the legitimacy came from across the political spectrum, it was hardly limited to the Nazi's.
--Hiram
Seems like the Left describes ANY disagreement with Obama as racism/hate.
Personally, I don't view the reflexive opposition to Obama and his policies, as primarily motivated by racism. If Hillary had been elected, I think Republicans would have followed the same policy. And people disagree with Obama a lot, and I do think people do the nation a disservice by blaming such such disagreements on race, which seems to me a tactic used to avoid the substance of issues critics raise. This works both ways by the way whenever a politician accuses another politician of playing the X card, X being a variable for race, gender or some other charged political category or label, which is also a way of shifting the discussion to x rather than the substance of the issue.
--Hiram
A little more on track... I am having a hard time coming up with an equivalent list of derogatory names that Conservatives call Liberals. If Conservatives are the party of hate I would think this should be easy. Here is what I have so far:
- tree hugger, socialists, communists, gay lovers, others?
Now Conservatives do note that there are some number of law breakers and/or potential terrorists within the illegal border jumpers and/or Muslim population. And I think that is absolutely correct. However when they say "all" of them are those things then they move into the hate speech realm.
I forgot fascists up above, but it seems both sides apply that term.
I am having a hard time coming up with an equivalent list of derogatory names that Conservatives call Liberals.
Socialist, communist I suppose. All sides seem to fee the need to label other sides in various ways, and that's usually a way to avoid the substance of issues. I have been personally accused of being in league with Satan. But I don't think labeling on either side is very productive. The liberal claim, if indeed we make it, that opposition or criticism of the president is or is tantamount to racism is dishonest and wrong.
--Hiram
Please remember Sullivan and Ilya's belief.
"Sullivan correctly noticed that “political correctness” did indeed create Trump because it breeds more resentment, more racism, and more alienation in people who are injured by the economy and insulted all the time in addition to it."
My belief is that the Liberals have been so viciously and consistently attacking / shaming people who believe differently than them, that it was just a matter of time before they had had enough and chose Trump to fight back.
Please remember the definition of Bigot "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Just think of how the far Left treats the White Religious Right. Or how they treat White Men in general...
"Sullivan correctly noticed that “political correctness” did indeed create Trump because it breeds more resentment, more racism, and more alienation in people who are injured by the economy and insulted all the time in addition to it."
Calling Mexicans "racists" isn't politically correct but it breeds resentment also. Despite his careful avoidance of political correctness, my guess is that Donald Trump has bred more resentment than any politician in my lifetime. Mr. Trump's poll numbers indicate he is one of the most disliked candidates in politics. Numerous leaders of his own party have said they will not support him. Others, who do support him, are barely able to say his name. Is this alienation from their party's leaders linked to his political incorrectness?
If criticizing Donald Trump bothers people, causes them to be racists, and increases their alienation from society, I guess that is just a burden we will have to bear. Especially, since Trump stands for nothing else.
--Hiram
I am sure there are many reasons why people dislike Trump. If they are like me they think he simply can not be trusted. In fact I think he is even less trustable than Hillary and that is saying a lot. However that is not my point.
The question here is why are so many people angry and frustrated enough with the status quo that they appreciate his flamboyant candor?
I agree with Sullivan and Ilya that decades of being made the scapegoat for problems that some Women, Minorities, Mexicans, LGBTs, Illegal Immigrants, etc experience(s) is likely wearing some nerves raw. I mean how many times can one expect a group to be called...
bigot, zealot, fanatic, fundamentalist
xenophobe, racist, segregationist
homophobe, haters, judgmental,
heartless, unsympathetic, cruel, inhuman
greedy, selfish, corrupt
misogynist, sexist, male chauvinist,
denier, unscientific, close minded
before they start to take offense and start to push back.
You must admit they are some very insulting and personal terms.
It certainly seems that the behaviors of many on the Liberal Left could be termed bigoted.
Definition of Bigot "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
I mean look at how they are reacting to and behaving at the Trump rallies. Or how about bombing threats...
Pizza Bomb 1
Pizza Bomb 2
It certainly seems that the behaviors of many on the Liberal Left could be termed bigoted.
Do you think this is a point that liberals dispute? Do you think liberal guilt is an uncommon phenomenon? Do you think the racist views spoken out loud by Donald Trump are unknown to the liberal psyche?
I do like to think that I am not devoted to my prejudices but they are certainly there. Remember, hypocrisy is only possible when someone has the standards they fail to live up to.
--Hiram
Yes I think many / most do deny this.
Maybe I can shed some light. I have long had the view that the Left is unique in its hatreds, for a very good reason. It believe that the Left can only maintain its issue positions thru a fundamental belief that they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, just for believing those things. Therefore, any opposition to their issues is automatically a vicious personal attack on that perceived superiority and on them personally, and they lash out. If a whole group of people, as one might expect, offers opposition no matter how rational, the Left responds with hate of the the group and anybody who might hold a similar view. I generalize, obviously, as do they.
The applicable maxim here is from, I believe, Will Rogers: "You can't reason a man out of something he didn't first reason himself into."
By the way, I did a little research on Liberal Guilt. Looks like that is something totally different and it is likely why Liberals experiencing Liberal Guilt are so mean to other supposedly lucky people.
I haven't commented because I confused about what the main idea of this topic. I don't think I experience much liberal guilt and I don't think I am very bigoted. I did just turn on cnn and am currently watching the KKK burn a cross. I bet those klansman are Trump supporters.
This an excellent part of Atlas Shrugged where the people plagued with Liberal Guilt try to force Hank Rearden to give away his Steel formula for the "good of society".
It wasn't what I was looking for though. I was looking for earlier where Hank first understood the concept. His very liberal nephew had asked for a check to support one of his causes. The irony though was that the nephew wanted to ensure that Hank's name could not be tied to the donation because that would be bad for his nephew's and the organization's appearance...
At which time Hank understood that people relied and made use of Hank's high values to guilt him into doing as he wished. Soon after Hank finally stopped be concerned about what his wife, nephew and others said and did. He chose to live up to his high values, and chose to stop letting those with lesser values manipulate him with taunts, guilt, names, etc.
Laurie,
Other than calling me or my ideas stupid etc occasionally, you do pretty good at staying polite, professional, etc.
Apparently Romney and Bloomberg are trying to warn graduates of demagogues like Trump and Sanders. Seems appropriate.
Demagogue defined
noun: a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
verb: to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
It believe that the Left can only maintain its issue positions thru a fundamental belief that they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, j
I hear that a lot, and it's hard to see where that is wrong. Left wing people think their opinions are superior. That's why they hold them. In my experience, right wing people think their opinions are superior. Presumably that's why they hold those views also. As for being morally superior, our moral views tend to be squishy.
What I find interesting about this view is not that one side or another thinks it's superiors, rather that anyone on either side, thinks that this is any sense odd or unusual instead of being a natural consequence of having opinions and sharing them.
"Therefore, any opposition to their issues is automatically a vicious personal attack on that perceived superiority and on them personally, and they lash out."
I suppose this follows when one views who see someone with a different opinion as displaying a belief in their moral superiority. If you do, any such difference is an attack on one's own moral character. For me, personal attacks do come from all sides. My own view is that when one tries to make a debate personal, that's an admission of rhetorical weakness.
--Hiram
The irony though was that the nephew wanted to ensure that Hank's name could not be tied to the donation because that would be bad for his nephew's and the organization's appearance.
Is the reason the uncle wanted to publicize his donation, that he wanted to undermine the organization's appearance?
--Hiram
Soon after Hank finally stopped be concerned about what his wife, nephew and others said and did.
I tend to agree with Hank on this, at least on a personal level. Labels don't bother me much. When I watch this commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PPk2NOQXs I wonder why anyone should care what other people think of their views as long as they believe they are right? But they do. They have some personal view of their own righteousness, which they perceive is under attack when it isn't shared by others.
--Hiram
Link to commercial
No, Hank wrote the check to satisfy the wants of his wife and nephew. Though he likely did not support the cause, I don't think he even knew what the cause was.
Though I agree that many people will feel insulted when people question their beliefs. I think that many Conservatives tend to be more pragmatic and less emotional. Maybe because to them it is just about money, taxes, programs, etc. Whereas I think for many Liberals it is about guilt, fairness, reparations, saving people, saving the environment, saving the world, etc. Though of course the Religious Right can get pretty passionate about killing fetuses and LGBT behavior.
"My own view is that when one tries to make a debate personal, that's an admission of rhetorical weakness." --Hiram
That is an excellent point and could be said to apply to both sides. However, in my long history of debate with liberals generally, I find that they do not usually debate (present company obviously excluded), but go immediately to some emotional (tu quoque, ad hominem, non sequitur) response. That is indeed a sign of the weakness (shallowness?) of their issue positions and the emotion could be described as hate-- not that it is useful to say so. Basically, people who riot in the street (or burn crosses) are NOT reasoning. There is no reasoning with them. And those who can inflame such passions in the absence of reason-- demagogues-- ascend to power, unfortunately for all of us.
"I think that many Conservatives tend to be more pragmatic and less emotional."
And that is why Republicans lose elections! Democrats cast us as not caring about people because we do not believe that handing out taxpayer money willy-nilly is the solution to people's problems, and we actually CARE about individual people and want to give them the freedom to succeed generally, and "a little personal help" when needed. Conservatives have always been found to be more generous with their own money, and liberals more generous with other people's money. But try to "undemagogue" the rampant perception that Republicans don't care, and you hit that wall that it isn't a reasoned belief.
Hank wrote the check to satisfy the wants of his wife and nephew.
My thought was that he should write checks to charities he believes in, or that benefit his business. That's what real world, as opposed to fictional, tycoons do. If he wants to please his wife by contributing to her pet charities, I guess that's in his self interest too. And if those charities turn up their noses at him, he always does have the alternative of contributing anonymously. These days, corporate tycoons have provided themselves numerous ways to hide their various contributions where that was in their interest.
--Hiram
"I just find it ironic that Sean accuses the Right of bigoted feelings and then plows straight ahead into obstinately and intolerantly stating his own opinions regarding the religious right folks and their views."
My position on the bathroom issue is informed by the fact that transgender folks have been using the bathroom to which they gender-identify for years and there have been no problems. They're not choosing which bathroom to go into because they're looking for a peepshow, they're trying to pee.
LGBT folks, on the other hand, have been called sexual predators (without evidence) and accused of all sorts of nasty things.
As I noted on MP, we can have these discussions without going into that sort of labeling. But if conservatives are going to dish out that sort of crap, they're going to get it back in spades.
I think that many Conservatives tend to be more pragmatic and less emotional.
The lack of emotion many conservatives display is one of the things that makes them so strange to the rest of us. Emotion, after all, is a very human quality and an important factor in the makeup of any individual and to ignore emotion, it seems to me, inevitably results in a stunted and incomplete view of the world. As for pragmatism, Republicans have curiously nominated for themselves, a candidate whose pragmatism seems to be his only quality, one who does not have any beliefs of the kind we usually think pragmatism supports. This is a problem on the Democratic side with Hillary, but to a lesser degree, because Hillary does seem to believe certain things, even if her beliefs are based on emotion, at least in part.
--Hiram
"I think that many Conservatives tend to be more pragmatic and less emotional."
Have you been watching the Presidential election? The "Conservative" party is going to nominate a guy who is proposing $1T a year in tax cuts, and has specified less than $100M in corresponding spending cuts. Pragmatic, indeed.
"Democrats cast us as not caring about people because we do not believe that handing out taxpayer money willy-nilly is the solution to people's problems, and we actually CARE about individual people and want to give them the freedom to succeed generally, and "a little personal help" when needed."
I think Republicans care about people; that's something that they have been able to convince themselves effectively that they do. But I just don't their tools are very effective. For one thing, a common techniques Republicans use is to find ways to distance themselves from the emotionalism they like to disparage. They love to talk about deficit spending, because they perceive numbers as lacking in emotion. They loathe speaking of what drives that deficit spending which is primarily the needs of an aging population, an issue no less real because of the emotional response it provokes. Posturing as the emotionless party is for them a tactic that allows them to avoid the real implications of the policies they advocate.
--Hiram
"But if conservatives are going to dish out that sort of crap, they're going to get it back in spades."
Sounds a lot like the typical kid's lament, "But HE started it" or "He looked at me funny."
Sean,
You are correct that the transgender issue was not an issue before the Left passed laws to protect their freedom of choice. Before that you are correct that no male parts transgender would have tried to go into a female bathroom or locker room unless they really looked like a woman.
There are LGBT folks who are predators just as there are straight folks who are predators. Look at all the Catholic priests and all the missing young boys... To deny this is silly.
"conservatives are going to dish out that sort of crap, they're going to get it back in spades"
My point exactly. There are a some extreme Conservatives who are hateful, rude and derogatory, and the Liberals use this as an excuse to be much more hateful, rude and derogatory much more of the time.
Sean,
What derogatory, hateful, etc terms do you see Conservatives applying to Liberals on a regular basis?
Anything as loaded as bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc?
"You are correct that the transgender issue was not an issue before the Left passed laws to protect their freedom of choice. Before that you are correct that no male parts transgender would have tried to go into a female bathroom or locker room unless they really looked like a woman."
LGBT was added to the Minnesota Human Rights Act in 1993. We've gone 23 years without this being an issue.
"Look at all the Catholic priests and all the missing young boys... To deny this is silly."
People who prey on children are pedophiles, and pedophiles cross all forms of sexual orientation. Passing the bathroom bill does *nothing* to protect children from pedophiles.
We get plenty of loaded terms thrown at us. I have had people tell me I'm not Christian because of my beliefs. Anti-American, communist, anti-religion, lazy, takers, on and on and on.
Both sides do this, but please continue trying to convince yourself of your own virtue.
Daily Kos Myers
Reddit Myers
So there are LGBT pedophiles, thank you for agreeing.
"LGBT folks, on the other hand, have been called sexual predators (without evidence) and accused of all sorts of nasty things."
Sean, This is not about me or my virtue. I have plenty of flaws, just not in this area.
My point is that the worst Liberals are equally or more vocal / bigoted / hateful as the worst Conservatives. Nothing more and nothing less.
The point, John, which you've yet again missed, is that there is no evidence that LGBT have a stronger incidence of sexual predatory activity than any other orientation.
These arguments and changes are much more recent, related and "in your face".
"Sean, This is not about me or my virtue."
OK.
"I have plenty of flaws, just not in this area."
I see. What was that you were saying again?
Sean,
Please give an example of where I have ever labeled a group:
bigot, zealot, fanatic, fundamentalist
xenophobe, racist, segregationist
homophobe, haters, judgmental,
heartless, unsympathetic, cruel, inhuman
greedy, selfish, corrupt
misogynist, sexist, male chauvinist,
denier, unscientific, close minded
Anti-American, communist, anti-religion, lazy, takers
Then there are the usual ones: stupid, illogical, etc
I am think the list will be very very small.
I will note that there are some pedophiles who are gay, because that is a fact. However you will never see me write that Gays are pedophiles because that would be inaccurate.
"These arguments and changes are much more recent, related and "in your face"."
The MSHSL proposal aligned rules for athletic competition with that of international governing bodies. It allows transgender students to have a complete high school experience under closely monitored conditions. What's wrong with that?
This whole blog is an exercise in labeling and classifying folks. Every issue is broken down into determining who is virtuous and who isn't. Do you generally avoid the most egregious and offensive terms in doing so? Sure. But you support the people who do use those terms.
My point is simply that the transgender rules have been changing significantly recently and therefore have caused the people with opposing views to react. The concept that "nothing has changed" and "it has been okay" for decades is flawed. If it had been okay for decades we would not be changing the general laws for the 0.3% of people who are transgender. In essence, the LGBT lobby pressuring society to change is driving the resistance.
In the past no one would have been sued for telling a physical boy that she/he must play on the boy's team and use the boy's locker room. With the MN anti-bullying law and this High School League ruling, that is no longer the case. No wonder folks want clear rules when the boat is rocked like this.
"My point is simply that the transgender rules have been changing significantly recently and therefore have caused the people with opposing views to react."
The MSHSL proposal aligned rules for athletic competition with that of international governing bodies. It allows transgender students to have a complete high school experience under closely monitored conditions. What's wrong with that?
The anti-bullying bill requires districts to have a policy to deal with bullying. This was prompted by failures of school districts to adequately respond to bullying, which resulted in the suicides of several students. What's wrong with that?
The only thing wrong here is that some people want to be able to continue to marginalize and treat certain folks of people like second-class citizens.
"you support the people who do use those terms"
Of course I do, since depending on the topic I either support the Conservatives or the Liberals. And since as noted above, both of them use hateful derogatory labels and terms. For better or worse, I break things down and analyze them in a very pragmatic way. (ie labeling and classifying folks)
Even in this post... I don't think I have in any way supported Trump or his followers. Lord knows I don't even know if I will vote for him.
"marginalize and treat certain folks of people like second-class citizens."
In reality they want to treat physical boys like physical boys. And they want to treat physical girls like physical girls.
Whereas you are practicing what you just accused me of...
"Every issue is broken down into determining who is virtuous and who isn't."
You are arguing that letting 0.3% of the population do as they choose is more virtuous than having them play / dress with their physical peers.
I really don't know which is more virtuous... However having a safe place to discuss it is what G2A is about.
"You are arguing that letting 0.3% of the population do as they choose is more virtuous than having them play / dress with their physical peers."
You are obviously ignorant of what the MSHSL policy entails. When a transgender student wants to participate in athletics, they have to go before the MSHSL in a hearing, where they have to produce details about their medical care and hormone treatments (by this point they are not "physical peers" with their birth sex), their record of counseling, and witnesses testify to how this student lives their life. MSHSL policy allows schools to determine the bathroom/locker room arrangement according to what they feel is best and what the student (and teammates) are most comfortable with.
It's not that Joe the offensive lineman comes into school one day and decides he wants to be the new power forward on the girls basketball team.
Sean, thank you for that explanation. It doesn't address the current rush to open up bathrooms and locker rooms to whatever gender you feel like that day. Those actually undergoing the medical transition can and should use a private room, which solves the problem for everybody. But this push to allow anybody to use whatever room they like simply enables those who would use it for perverse purposes, and there are many times more of them than there are true transsexuals. Let's be clear-- you use the facilities assigned to those with similar genitals, and no other. If you're in the wrong one according to that classification you are in the wrong one. No hate involved, just simple common sense.
"If you're in the wrong one according to that classification you are in the wrong one. No hate involved, just simple common sense."
When a transgendered man is assaulted by a young girl's father for entering the restroom that the girl is using, will you support the assailant or the transgendered person who was using that restroom because of his biological sex at birth?
Joel
Joel,
I agree with you that they are writing these laws stupidly. They should say that one should use the bathroom that matches your parts.
And to answer your question. The transgendered man who was obeying the law.
"They should say that one should use the bathroom that matches your parts."
I don't see how that is any better, considering sex re-assignment surgery is expensive and there are many transgendered people who have not had it done. This person could still, by all appearances, be a man and the victim of assault, even though his "parts" would require him to use the women's room.
Joel
Why is it so hard for you to understand and be empathetic of transgender people, John.
Which restroom should a transgender guy with a beard use? What would you do if such a person walked into the ladies room while you were waiting for your daughter. I can't believe I am wasting my time to wade into this topic again :(
I agree Laurie-
And yet John wonders why we think our position is superior to the conservative opinion.
Joel
Definitions, people! Somebody is transgender when their "parts" have been changed. I don't care about the difficulty or the angst that you "feel" you are in the wrong body; that's not my problem. If we provide you a private place where you can do your business without revealing your parts, no harm done all around. Other than that, parts is parts.
Do some more reading, Jerry, you have a misunderstanding of the term transgender.
So are you suggesting that every school and business provide a gender neutral bathroom?
Laurie and Joel,
You have a great deal of empathy for the transgender person. (3 out of 1,000)
And yet you have 0 empathy for the portion of the 997 out of 1,000 people who do not want the wrong parts in their locker room.
It is interesting.
so, John, you neglected to answer- where should the transgender man with a beard use the bathroom? I think everyone would be more comfortable if he used the men's room.
should the transgender child named Katie, who wears a dress, is called "she" and plays with the girls go into the boys bathroom? it seems like this might be very distressing to her and likely lead to bullying.
so imagine a large suburban high school with 2990 cisgender students and 10 transgender students, which students do we think are most in need of protection and support?
It's funny, a few weeks ago 60 minutes did a full segment on a transgender swimmer at Harvard, and the subject of locker room accomodation never even came up. It seems that this issue must be easily managed if people don't freak out.
My initial advice is that he skips the beard until she is officially a he... And as I often say if she looks like a he and uses a stall, no one is going to report anything as amiss.
I think Katie can use the one of the non-gender specific restrooms or she can skip wearing a dress to school... Seems pretty simple.
The transgender students are perfectly capable of living roughly as their biological sex or use the uni-sex facilities. Do you think letting the transexuals use the locker room or restroom opposite of their biological sex is going to "protect them".
I saw the Harvard piece. Please remember that these were adults and they discussed the situation before a decision was made.
so it seems that your idea of how to resolve this issue is for transgender people to not be transgender. I still don't understand how you can watch segments like the one on 60 minutes and not develop any empathy.
Let's say that 500 of the 997 non-transgender individuals do not want the transgender person in the bathroom / locker room with them.
What is your rationale of putting the wants of the 3 before the wants of the 500?
I feel for the transgender individuals for many reasons, which bathroom /locker room they need to use is the least of them.
It seems to me that the issue can be resolved by providing separate bathrooms, stalls, or changing areas / privacy curtains for whoever wants to use them. I think half of us just need to calm down. It will be okay.
To quote Trump, "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble."
As I have explained many times... It is the LGBT supporters who are rocking the boat... I agree that they should settle down if there were "so few incidents"...
However they keep launching lawsuits and driving the needs for official laws... Here is the info that Sean pointed me to...
""G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 1567467 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 2016). The district court dismissed a Title IX sex discrimination claim brought by a transgender boy high school student who was denied access to the boys' restroom." EEOC on Title VII and LGBT Discrimination
Why are you avoiding answering this simple question?
"What is your rationale of putting the wants of the 3 before the wants of the 500?"
Or in your example... The wants of the 10 before the wants of the 1500...
"What is your rationale of putting the wants of the 3 before the wants of the 500?"
That's a surprising question coming from someone who I think of as a conservative. In the context of a discussion of income disparity, the argument I would put forward with my conservative hat on, is that everyone benefit when the wants of the three are satisfied because they are the drivers of the economy and of prosperity. The money they save in tax cuts and tax benefits is used to benefit them personally, sure, but is also used efficiently to benefit the economy as a whole.
Of course, in other contexts, this argument plays out differently.
==Hiram
Equally amusing for a Liberal to say that the 500 should be uncomfortable so the 3 can be comfortable... :-)
"What is your rationale of putting the wants of the 3 before the wants of the 500?"
Because we don't live by mob rule?
That was easy.
Joel
And absolutely baffling as to why separate locker rooms by what is in your underwear rather than what is in your head isn't simple common sense. We manage to have handicap accessible facilities almost everywhere for those with physical handicaps. No reason why the very few "transitioning" cannot be accommodated the same way, so nobody else need be concerned. Of course, that reasonable accommodation doesn't upset the larger society sufficiently to suit the social justice warriors and PC nazis, so maybe it's a bad idea.
One of the primary purposes of the Constitution -- and most specifically the Bill of Rights -- is to protect the rights of the minority.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, no unreasonable search and seizure -- just to name a few -- are designed to protect individuals from the whims of the majority.
And Joel, would you prefer that bullies rule? Where do you find a mob these days? Out in front of Trump rallies? Bullies, though, can be found everywhere the sensible NC law is opposed.
How do you know that half of high school students would be uncomfortable with sharing a bath room with a transgender student. I believe young people are pretty open minded. I think accommodations such as separate bathrooms, separate stalls, or separate changing areas/ privacy curtains could be used to make everyone feel comfortable.
Laurie,
If children were all kind and open minded we would not have had to pass that silly MN anti-bullying law. Sorry... The transgender kids will be picked on no matter which rest / locker room they use. Just as any social outliers will.
Sean/ Joel,
Society is asking them to use the rest /locker room that aligns with their body parts, or a unisex facility. We are not trying to water board them.
And if this is a supposed non-issue... I mean it is just a rest / locker room and this all isn't important, or so you say... Then the transgender should be fine with either facilities.
Or are willing to admit that this is a big deal and laws should be written to clarify what is acceptable in our society?
No one is saying it's a non-issue. It's a very important issue to the transgender community.
What I am saying is that this has been going on for years without incident. Why do we need a law to address something that hasn't been a problem? I thought you all hated intrusive government sticking its nose in where it wasn't necessary?
If we're not supposed to regulate business even though there have been a string of accounting frauds, why should we regulate bathroom use when there's no evidence of transgender folks committing crimes in bathrooms?
"Society is asking them to use the rest /locker room that aligns with their body parts."
Joking aside, is a beard a male or female trait?
Joel
Sean,
Again. It is the Liberals who dragged this into the courts and the Legislatures. I mean you are the one who provided me with the link showing all the lawsuits that have occurred during the past 20+ years.
"However they keep launching lawsuits and driving the needs for official laws... Here is the info that Sean pointed me to...
""G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 1567467 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 2016). The district court dismissed a Title IX sex discrimination claim brought by a transgender boy high school student who was denied access to the boys' restroom." EEOC on Title VII and LGBT Discrimination"
I think the Conservatives were fine with the status quo in the 1980's and keeping this out of the laws and courts.
"I think the Conservatives were fine with the status quo in the 1980's and keeping this out of the laws and courts."
...when they weren't actively working to deny equal rights to a segment of the U.S. citizenry.
Joel
It's easy to be in favor of the status quo when no one is messing with your rights.
You are absolutely correct.
And now that the LGBT lobby is pushing to forcefully let people with boy's/men's bodies into the same locker room with their daughters, I am pretty sure the majority will push back. Thanks God America Let's us Work This Chaos Out Relatively Peacefully.
"...now that the LGBT lobby is pushing to forcefully let people with boy's/men's bodies into the same locker room with their daughters..."
So to counter such horrors, the "moral" majority is pushing to force people who look like men into the same locker room with their daughters.
Whatever. Enjoy your unintended consequences.
Joel
I guess that beard is better than a penis... :-)
Yeah...it's all laughs, except that by the time anyone knows whether or not the person has the "proper equipment" to be in the locker room, the safety of the transgender individual will already have been put at risk.
Joel
As I said before, skip the BEARD if you want to use the ladies room...
The reality is that you are looking for the oddest combination of events to occur in order to make your point. Please remember that if there are only 3 per 1,000 people. All of this very rare...
To give you a point of comparison, people with Down's Syndrome are only 3 in 2,100...
Not sure where you are getting your numbers, but the only true transgenders are more like 2 in 10,000. The rest have mental aberrations like "gender dystopia." That means their biological sex doesn't match their mental "gender." So if we separate facilities by physical sex, no one would know (same as gay people), unless behavior somehow gives them away. For those seriously transitioning, private facilities have usually been seen as the proper response and again, no one cares.
The reason there is this sudden rush to pass what used to be common sense of having facilities separated by obvious sexual characteristics is because some fools passed laws saying we should NOT do what we've always done. The assumption by those fools was that nobody could possibly object to a man using the ladies room because that "man" was trying to live as a woman. But that would allow ANY man the same access, and therein lies the problem. Liberals love to pass laws based on the best possible intentions. Unfortunately they don't understand human nature.
Jerry, The 0.3% seems pretty well established.
538 Transgender
Wiki Transgender
"All of this very rare..."
So you think that creating new laws and more government intrusion is the best way to handle something that is very rare?
You conservatives sure don't make a lot of sense.
Joel
"As I said before, skip the BEARD if you want to use the ladies room..."
But you are advocating for a law that FORCES a transgender person with a beard to use the ladies room. Are you now advocating that the law require that person to change their appearance? Good heavens!
Joel
"But that would allow ANY man the same access..."
And you think a law will stop those with malicious intent?
Joel
John, your number confuses "transgender" (changing from one set of parts to another) with "gender identity," what goes in in one's head. If your "parts" match those of others in the room, nobody is likely to care. If you walk into the ladies locker room with a beard, you're clearly not trying to blend in, regardless of parts.
And Joel, you are correct, no law will stop those with malicious intent. But the law you seem to be supporting would make it much EASIER for them.
Joel,
As I keep stating. The Transgender rights folks are the ones who rocked the boat with their frivolous law suits. Now the main stream is trying to figure out how to stop the law suits by clearly defining the edges of the road.
Jerry,
transgender defined:
1. noting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex assigned at birth: the transgender movement;
transgender rights.
2. noting or relating to a person who does not conform to societal gender norms or roles.
Please note that transgender is the term for those individuals before and after surgery.
"frivolous law suits"
It's very easy for you to say they're frivolous, but then, your ability to use a restroom or locker room hasn't been impeded.
Joel
Repeatedly you say which restroom one uses is immaterial... And it is silly that the Conservatives are making a big deal of nothing. I mean who cares which restroom one goes into... Especially if there are stalls...
However you support a transgender boy (girl parts) high school student suing in court for access to the boys' restroom.
I am sorry, but is this all a frivolous or important topic? I can go either way, but I can't go both at the same time.
"Repeatedly you say which restroom one uses is immaterial..."
Uh. No. I have not.
Joel
Aren't you one of those arguing that people should be comfortable having people with the "wrong parts" in their bath / locker rooms?
And that these people should not be trying to legislate this topic? That these folks are making a big deal over nothing?
That there was no problem until the people started to try to legislate this topic?
I may be confusing your perspective with Sean's.
"Please note that transgender is the term for those individuals before and after surgery."
Then that is why we have the problem, and why the laws state "biological male and biological female." I will allow that, after the surgery, it should be "apparent biological male or apparent biological female," but that's going to be a rare case, nonetheless being the necessary clarification. And if they are uncomfortable or not "apparent" then we can accommodate them in private facilities.
Let's just not have that bearded guy in the red sequined cocktail dress, chest hair showing, strolling into the ladies.
"Let's just not have that bearded guy in the red sequined cocktail dress, chest hair showing, strolling into the ladies."
You are confused.
Joel
John,
I am arguing that it is decidedly NOT immaterial to transgender folks which restroom/locker room they use.
However, it IS immaterial to ME who is using the restroom/locker room with ME (or anyone else who is enlightened in regards to these issues).
I am saying that there is no logical reason to ban transgender folks from using the restroom/locker room that corresponds to their gender, so no, there should not be legislation regarding banning certain people from certain restrooms/locker rooms and that, yes, those folks who are raising a stink and passing laws against transgender folks are making a big deal over nothing.
Problems arose when transgender folks started to assert themselves. The alternative for transgender folks is, in so many cases, death. So, the problem lies with those who can't see beyond their own fear and religious blindness.
Joel
My position is the same as Joel's, so I'm not sure why you're so confused, John.
"You are confused." -- Joel
Joel, I am not confused about what I actually saw. Now, would you like to defend that?
And "enlightened"? Please. Maybe in your world there are no bad people and biological sex means nothing to anybody. I doubt we will be that "enlightened" in the next millennium or so.
jerry-
Enlightened people know that sex and gender are not the same thing.
Joel
Joel,
"I am arguing that it is decidedly NOT immaterial to transgender folks which restroom/locker room they use.
However, it IS immaterial to ME who is using the restroom/locker room with ME (or anyone else who is enlightened in regards to these issues)."
Now who is being judgmental and labeling... And applying dual standards... Good thing we are having this off topic discussion under the "Hatred and Bigotry: Tools of Right and Left" post.
The reality is that many many citizens (apparently knuckle dragging barbarians) really don't want the wrong parts in the wrong locker room... Especially if their children are involved and exposed.
Now as I have said before. Their silliness to refer to the sex on the birth certificate on these laws is wrong and incorrect. I would just call it the "Use the facilities that match your parts bill..."
Per Merriam Webster... Maybe they need to become more enlightened. :-)
gender
1 sex
2 the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
sex
1 the state of being male or female
2 men or male animals as a group or women or female animals as a group
A dictionary is a historical document.
Joel
Or are "enlightened people" lobbying to changing the meaning of the word...
Oh it is so confusing...
ugh! I think this may be the worst idea I have read so far this year, "Use the facilities that match your parts bill..." Worst for both the idea itself and the way it is expressed. I refuse to read one more comment on this topic that includes the word "parts".
This issue is much more complicated than "parts" but you guys clearly have no interest in developing a greater understanding, so I am not going to take the time to find you a link.
If you would like to share any other insights with me on this topic it will need to be in another thread because I can't take this one anymore.
"the worst idea I have read so far this year, "Use the facilities that match your parts bill...""
That's kind of funny since it has worked for centuries if not millennium. :-)
And thank you for no more links that explain how the 99.7% should change their showering methods/expectations for the 0.3% or fewer who have not had their sex change surgery yet.
I'm with Laurie on this one. Unless you can show you've learned anything or expanded your understanding, I'm done with this.
You're obsessed with "parts". I'm concerned about people.
Joel
"This issue is much more complicated than "parts" but you guys clearly have no interest in developing a greater understanding,..." -- Laurie
Laurie, I don't see how we could possibly find a less offensive euphemism than "parts," and the fact that you find the billion-year-old binary reproductive evolution of our species "complicated" is a sign of the mental Mobius loop one must follow to come out on the wrong side of this simple issue. I'll give you a hint: Want to know which locker room to use? Look in your underwear. Isn't that simple?
Joel,
You are apparently only concerned about the 0.3% of people.
But I agree that we will need to agree to disagree. I am guessing this will be resolved in the courts.
"You are apparently only concerned about the 0.3% of people."
What does the 0.3% have to do with anything? I have a friend who's a Hindu (also less than 1% of the population) -- which of his civil rights can I infringe on because he's part of a small minority?
Which right is infringed if a man wants to use the ladies restroom?
Post a Comment