Jump to content

U.S. Politics: The Summer of Trump is Lasting Longer Than a Season in Westeros


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

Please explain how the British government is complicit in covering up Rotherham, when it was the actions of a local council and a local police force who looked the other way that were to blame, and it was the British government that launched a public enquiry, fired those involved and put the local council and its child protection department under central control while the mess was sorted out. Furthermore, the government has made it crystal clear that no such misguided sensitivies should ever feature in decision making again. Lastly, please explain how the Rotherham case relates to your other point about refugees, when none of the perpetrators were refugees, and the British government has in fact refused to allow mass refugee entry into the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously - her and others.  People on TV in general tend to be on the "attractive" end of the scale (men and women).  This isn't universally true (for anybody), but it tends to be true.  

Also, I don't see why people have a problem or some kind of dissonance with Megyn Kelly having different personal

views than her network views.  It's a job, and a very well-paying one.  Maybe because I'm a lawyer, but that kind of dissonance happens fairly frequently in the real world.  Journalists, like lawyers, aren't priests.  There isn't some sort of rule that you have to fervently believe in everything you write or say as part of your work for hire.   

 TV Journalist do sell themselves on being honest and on their integrity.   So, stating that you say something or write something for pay should give a little pause.

  I think there is a difference in presented what will be a different viewpoint to prevent a subject from being staled.   It something else if you talking or writing is pushing for war or espousing racist thoughts and policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Prunes,

Are you positing that the distinction between criticism and political correctness is that the former is always accurate and the latter is always in error?

This is usually the case when the right complains about political correctness. It is clear that they are fond of regulating speech to mollify feelings, such as wanting the liberals to stop calling the Tea Party people "teabaggers" or to stop using terms like "homophobe." They also dislike the use of terms like "racists" and "xenophobes." But when they do it, it's not political correctness. Oh no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear there is so much crap about how certain groups of people are the rational ones and cutting the shackles of PC, but it's the biggest load of irrational tripe and the term PC is meaningless.  When it started to be used maybe it meant something, but it really doesn't now.

IMO, PC now means that a bigot feels triggered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Prunes,Are you positing that the distinction between criticism and political correctness is that the former is always accurate and the latter is always in error?

I'll try to answer two questions at once.

"The Labour Party, in particular, is mired in shame over “cultural sensitivity” in Rotherham. Especially, cynics might point out, a sensitivity to the culture of Muslims whose votes they don’t want to lose. Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham from 1994 to 2012, actually admitted to the BBC’s World At One that “there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.” Much better to hang on to your impeccable liberal credentials than save a few girls from being raped, eh, Denis?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html

Here you have an elected official admitting to a widespread culture of putting a specific ethnic/ racial constituency's loyalty before justice and security.

Similar to establishment Republicans and Democrats wishing to grant amnesty to up to 20 million "undocumented persons of migrancy" to grab a chunk of votes down the road.

It's a runaway train, mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't answered my question, but anyway, I'll point out that the local MP, council and police chief came to that conclusion in Rotherham, and all have been punished for it, whereas the Labour council, MP and police chief in nearby Burnley came to the opposite decision. So, it's hardly a national or widespread culture.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 TV Journalist do sell themselves on being honest and on their integrity.   So, stating that you say something or write something for pay should give a little pause.

  I think there is a difference in presented what will be a different viewpoint to prevent a subject from being staled.   It something else if you talking or writing is pushing for war or espousing racist thoughts and policies.

Same with lawyers.  But there is a difference between reporting the facts accurately, and buying into the biases of the organization that you are hired to represent.  So, to the extent that she reports inaccurate information that she knows is inaccurate, boo on her.  But, to the extent of the editorializing (including the bias that exists in [almost] all "straight news"), you know, what, I think it says nothing to her honesty or integrity.  Again, not a priest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prunes,

You also haven't answered my question.  Indeed, respectfully, I don't see how it can have been considered an answer to my question at all.  I was not interested in a specific incidence of political correctness, accurate or otherwise.  I was asking if you were positing a definition for political correctness.  Is political correctness by definition characterized by the inaccuracy of its criticisms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. It served a valid purpose in allowing groups to choose the nomenclature by which they were referred in the political sphere.

Violations of it may be In poor taste, but I reject the notion that not using them should be grounds for dismissal or proof of racism, misogyny what have you.

We're not in Kansas anymore with this.

You only cheapen racism and misogyny when you get to where we are.

Comparing Trump to Hitler for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prunes, 

Not necessarily. It served a valid purpose in allowing groups to choose the nomenclature by which they were referred in the political sphere.

 

Violations of it may be In poor taste, but I reject the notion that not using them should be grounds for dismissal or evidence of racism, misogyny what have you.

 

We're not in Kansas anymore with this.

I appreciate your response and your candor.

So, if the police are afraid to shut down this pedophilia ring due to PC reprisals, I presume it's not fear of the public directly which motivates them, but instead they fear reprisals from their employers.  Their employers are, presumably, elected public officials who will need votes, and who fear a PC smear campaign in the next election.

Have I got that all straight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now for something completely different, and maybe more interesting.  There were recently oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.  Here is a link through the tabloidy (and left leaning) Above the Law:  http://abovethelaw.com/2016/01/farewell-unions-its-been-real/?rf=1.  A different take through Forbes:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2016/01/12/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/#2715e4857a0b6d7f82245cac.  

Based on the questions and commentary from the Bench, it looks like Friedrichs will prevail, upending the support of public unions.  I have to say, in the public union context, from a first amendment perspective I can't say I disagree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prunes, 

I appreciate your response and your candor.

So, if the police are afraid to shut down this pedophilia ring due to PC reprisals, I presume it's not fear of the public directly which motivates them, but instead they fear reprisals from their employers.  Their employers are, presumably, elected public officials who will need votes, and who fear a PC smear campaign in the next election.

Have I got that all straight?

Except, of course, that the police weren't answerable to local politicians and Prunes is claiming that the all-pervasive PC culture meant that the national government participated in the cover-up, despite being from a different party with an obvious interest in embarrassing their opponents, and the fact that they actually did expose it, set up a public enquiry and fired those responsible. It's a mystery to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Zabzie

I am sure FLOW is doing a little dance right now.

The unions will be hit hard in this decision (provided the questioning is a good indication on eventual decision). The problem of fair share members (a.k.a "free riders") will be difficult to overcome. I can't find any good angle to this.

IMO, I think the link to 1st Amendment is rather tenuous. It resets on the ambiguity of the government's dual role as both the employer and also the body of governance. In essence, denying public employees the same type of labor union structure is depriving them of equal protection on account that they choose to work for the government, i.e., you can run a labor union one way if you work for Boeing but you cannot run it the same way if you work for the State of California. When public employees negotiate salary and working conditions and address work grievances with their employer, we are dealing with the government in the framework of an employer-employee relation, not in the capacity of elected-electorate dynamics. To say that salary and workload negotiations between a group of office workers at the Department of Transportation is a form of political speech is misappropriating the principle of first Amendment to serve a political goal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prunes, I appreciate your response and your candor.

So, if the police are afraid to shut down this pedophilia ring due to PC reprisals, I presume it's not fear of the public directly which motivates them, but instead they fear reprisals from their employers.  Their employers are, presumably, elected public officials who will need votes, and who fear a PC smear campaign in the next election.

Have I got that all straight?

That's the essence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Zabzie

I am sure FLOW is doing a little dance right now.

The unions will be hit hard in this decision (provided the questioning is a good indication on eventual decision). The problem of fair share members (a.k.a "free riders") will be difficult to overcome. I can't find any good angle to this.

IMO, I think the link to 1st Amendment is rather tenuous. It resets on the ambiguity of the government's dual role as both the employer and also the body of governance. In essence, denying public employees the same type of labor union structure is depriving them of equal protection on account that they choose to work for the government, i.e., you can run a labor union one way if you work for Boeing but you cannot run it the same way if you work for the State of California. When public employees negotiate salary and working conditions and address work grievances with their employer, we are dealing with the government in the framework of an employer-employee relation, not in the capacity of elected-electorate dynamics. To say that salary and workload negotiations between a group of office workers at the Department of Transportation is a form of political speech is misappropriating the principle of first Amendment to serve a political goal.

 

Terra, I think it's more difficult than that.  If salary and workload were all, that would be one thing, but it isn't.  I do think that employees of the State of California and employees of Boeing are in different places and that the unions should be treated differently.  For one thing, as a citizen of the State of California, I have different rights vis a vis my employer than I would as an employee of Boeing.  The state is simply a different sort of actor than a private employer and I think the equal protection argument falls down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...