Dumb Political Correctness

I know that this is just a meme and an attempt to be funny--is it?--but this type of humor is actually worse than what Mr. Trump said about those countries. The message that is supposed to be funny is that if an American says that he appreciates the transparency of Donald Trump speaking his mind on all sorts of topics and not being a phony typical politician, that that means that such American is a racist *******... you are accusing me and a lot of other people of a personal character flaw (well, two) that I don't have and you don't even know me. You top it off with condescending vulgarity directed at me personally--how is your post not worse than whatever Donald Trump said about Haiti being a "shi%%y country"?

 

To be clear, I do appreciate Donald Trump's speaking of his mind. As I already posted, I think he exposed himself in this instance to be tone deaf to the current racial conversation, and was obnoxiously vulgar in the process. I half expect people like Trump to talk this way on the golf course but not in proper meetings. It's not phony to tone your vulgarity down for more formal situations.

 

Not the point. Libs I talk to say it’s proof positive that Trump is a racist. They are relitigating the 2016 election.

 

It's also not being a jerk. When a statement serves no purpose but to hurt people, you hold your tongue even if the statement is true. That's called being an adult. It's the reason you don't walk up to 300 pound women and tell them that they're fat.

 

Dear Liberals: stop making me defend Trump.

 

This reminds me of people I've encountered over the years who claim they just tell the truth and the truth hurts. Well, typically it's their version of the truth and in most cases they weren't the most emotionally intelligent people I'd encountered. Personally, I am not inconvenienced by civility or delivering the truth (as I see it) in a manner that preserves not only working relationships but also personal relationships. I've been wrong enough in my lifetime to know that most dogmatic absolute statements of fact are a mine-field and serve no purpose except to make the person saying it feel good. And comments about race are on another level above that. There is no purpose in segregating cultures in a conversation especially when it appears you have claimed superiority for your own.

Personally I am not impressed with Europe at all. It's a nice place to visit but they have much to answer for given their history of atrocities, world wars and imperialism. What is the definition of a civilized advanced culture? That which has the longest record of recorded history? Art? The clothes they wear? Plays and symphonies? Religious and cultural imperialism? The fact is Europe has a history of abomination and I wonder if the net effect of our world is less than what it could have been.

I'm not saying there aren't ****-hole countries because there are but as I am trying to say, Trump is too unsophisticated in his personal manner for my tastes.

 

A few things to consider. First, "Europe" isn't a distinct culture. There are many different cultures in Europe with separate histories, languages, accomplishments, and yes, atrocities. For example, it's pretty unfair to lump Poland with Nazi Germany.

Second, I don't buy into the idea of trans-generational guilt for atrocities. I think you're guilty of what you do or enable, and I think you're not guilty of what you don't do or enable. Why should some 40 year old Spanish guy have to answer for Cortes butchering the Aztecs centuries ago? What is the moral basis for his culpability?

Third, it has become fashionable to look at European atrocities as though they're somehow unique - that they basically just pillaged and plundered a world of innocent Boys Scouts. That's horeshit that's mostly peddled to promote international Leftism. They didn't invent the idea of an empire and don't have a monopoly on atrocities. Since the beginning of time, human beings all over the world, have tried to enrich themselves, acquire land, and expand their influence. To achieve those goals, they've killed and committed atrocities. That's true of Europeans, Africans, Asians, "Native" Americans such as Aztecs, Incas, etc.

Fourth, there is one thing that is fairly unique to Europe, and that is self-introspection and moral evaluation. European nations (and even successor nations) fall all over themselves to apologize and "atone" for past atrocities and make sure nobody think they're too "jingoistic." They even get pissed off if other European countries that haven't committed atrocities don't want to go along with their self-flagellation.

When was the last time you heard an Arab apologize for show contrition for the Islamic conquest of North Africa? How much effort does Russia make to atone for the acts of brutality performed by the Soviet Union? Has the Chinese government apologized to its own people for the "Great Leap Forward?" And of course, we could come up with many more examples.

 

@Mr. Deez

First I must thank you for your comprehensive response. It indicates you have put much thought into this subject. I may repeat myself below but the context of my remarks are within the President's comments of ****-hole countries as if he is enlightened and qualified to speak and pass judgment on the matter without any historical context as to why they are in the shape they are in.

I understand that Europe is made up of different cultures but in my opinion it's not that simple to break it apart and pretend there is no common thread between the major countries (and by Europe I really mean England, France, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy; Poland is kind of in the middle for me in this context). There are ****-hole countries and without some acknowledgement of EUROPEAN imperialism then it seems disingenuous to me to attack them when they have a history of being exploited by the supposed superior culture of the West. That is the context of my comment. It's like people who want black people to get over it. I don't think anyone has a real understanding of the psychological impact upon black people that their history in America has had on them. It's an outrage to me to hear some of my white redneck friends mock them when those same type of personalities oppressed them long ago. I do see a connection. Not as guilt for what their fathers did but instead in the failure to evolve. That is what I am getting at when I say I'm not impressed with Europe. I won't apologize for it. I won't make relative arguments either (bringing up other atrocities by other cultures). Isn't moral relativism a Leftist construct?

As an apology for the past has been presented in your comment as some sort of cleansing I'm wondering how you felt about Obama's "apology tour" as it was dubbed by some on the right. Was that also something peddled by Leftists? Are we supposed to apologize or not? Germany was basically forced to look into itself because it was broken into pieces after the war. They were left in complete shambles and I'm not so impressed with their subsequent "falling all over themselves" because they were forced to do it.

I also believe that Gorbachev spent much time discussing the past of the Soviet Union and their has been much de-Stalinism by Russia which if not an outright apology is still a clear admission of the failures of the past. It's just an example.

As for trans-generational guilt for atrocities, do you take a legalistic or practical approach? Gorbachev admitted Russian guilt over the Katyan Massacre (22,000 Poles murdered by the Soviets on Stalin's orders in the aforementioned Poland) believe the Russians have attempted to hide behind a law that considers the matter to be a criminal act by the individuals and not a state crime against humanity thus the statute of limitations has expired according to them. Are we to just move on?

As I said above, in the end, my comment is about ****-holes versus enlightened, progressive societies. I believe the past has damned many nations to ****-hole status. I suppose we can tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps but it's not that simple to me.

 

Well actually libs say that anyone who says anything positive about Trump is a racist.

Call me whatever you want, but I like a booming economy, a President who stands up for America and a man who is destroying establishment politics.

 

I don't think he's a racist but I suppose one would have to define racism. It's like when they say sex is what your wife says it is when it comes to another women in your life. Black people clearly have a different definition of racism than whites (except the far Left whites who agree with whatever a black person would say it is assuming it's a left wing black person; i.e. not Clarence Thomas).

I don't think he's a white supremacist; I think he's an egomaniac who happens to be white.

 

I think trump is like most uptight WASPs who dislike disorder, crime, and hell holes.

 

Pretty much. I think I read that Dr. King's nephew met with Trump and described him as not being a racist but instead as ignorant on race which you could say about a lot of people. It's not an excuse for every official act but it's not near as sinister.

 

I am most definitely one of them.

 

I would like to note the South had moved on from the civil war and the statues were not harming anyone, but it is not the conservative southerners that cannot "move on." My answer is "yes. People complaining about the past felt the south had not 'moved on' and demanded statue removal. They got it. Now 'move on' from the past." Honestly, my sympathy level dropped to zero for anyone complaining about the past. I do not want to hear any of this double-standard "you have to move on from history you care about but we are never going to shut up about history we care about" BS.

I mean, everyone is where they are today due to the past. The present is the result of the past. However, today determines the future. That said, was Hati or were many former colonial nations super powers before colonialism? Not really. I am not here to defend colonialism, but the reason these countries fell to imperialism and colonialism is they were behind to begin with. Nations go up and down. Germany and England were behind when the Romans conquered them. England suffered from colonialism from the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans before becoming the most powerful nation on Earth from the Spanish Armada until the 1940s. The Arabs successfully drove the Crusaders out. Some nations have generally managed to stay forward and some have never really stopped being behind. I think any nation can move forward, but I am not sure some would have with or without colonial intervention (see Afghanistan). I am sure quite a few professors have pondered why some nations move forward and some have always been "****holes" and can give better explanations than myself.

Look at Japan when the US intervened in the 1850s. The difference is that, unlike most colonial nations, Japan looked forward and did pull itself up from its bootstraps. Japan pulled itself up so far, they became an aggressor imperialist nation and made the US regret its colonial intervention on December 7, 1941. Yes, countries can pull themselves up. Some do, some do not. Having once been conquered and occupied is not a permanent death sentence. There are a million factors in why some countries do better than others. That said, if you want to succeed, you have to look forward like Japan did. If you spend all your time complaining about the past, you will never get anywhere. This is true on an individual and a national scale. Former colonial nations need to look at the internal and external challenges facing them today, not 50 years ago. So do individuals around the world.

Trump is not racist, but he is certainly nationalist/xenophobic. His campaign began on falsely claiming Obama was not born here and then on a “we need to build a wall” policy. The problem we have today is people are ignorant and do not seem to comprehend there are a variety of types of discrimination beyond racism. They just call everything "racism." Nationalism can be good or bad. I think it was perfectly fine to discriminate against Nazi Germany in the 30s and or to discriminate against North Korea today. That said, you have to be careful with nationalism and make sure you do not turn into Nazi Germany or North Korea.

Agree.

 

Possibly, but colonialism isn't the primary reason countries are in the crapper today.

 

That happens a lot - it's why he says a lot of what he says.

 

Are you saying that—apart from the s-word which I find trashy but I know people use it—you are okay with a person saying “because of history, many current nations are essentially permanent s@@@-holes”?

 

No, I'm saying that it's not advisable or necessary to insult them given the past and the culpability of the Western world in some of their problems. It smacks of some STILL-ignorant Southern racists who insult blacks because of how they act today without any remorse or consideration for the psychological and practical damage inflicted upon their community over the years.

I understand that there are countries in which there are horrid living conditions. I understand that a country such as Haiti for instance was governed by a corrupt despot. I also understand there are terrible living conditions in our own country. I just don't think Trump should refer to these countries in that manner.

 

I'm pleading the Fifth.

 

This article hits it out of the park.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/policing-sexual-desire-15669.html

You can believe that sexual morays of the 50s and 60s (pre-Woodstock) shouldn't have made women feel shame for having sexual thoughts and still notice that the complete lack of sexual morality in our culture has raised a generation of women who say things like this:

“Sometimes you have to have lunch with girls you don’t want to have lunch with, and sometimes you have to have sex with boys you don’t want to have sex with.”

It's ironic that a generation that claims that "no means no" has apparently become incapable of saying no without feelings of guilt, awkwardness, and obligation to just "go along," while previous generations (ones not raised in the Hollywood culture of the casting couch) seemed pretty comfortable with the idea that men don't have the right to a woman's body under any circumstances without consent.

I have no idea about the character of Aziz Azaria - he strikes me as pretty much a tool and an idiot - but I'm having a hard time buying all the things that apparently kept happening between when she went up to his apartment and when she said "you men are all the same" and left in tears, when Aziz apparently thought everything was great and had NO IDEA that anything was wrong.

 

2 points on the sh!thole comments.

1. The comment themselves are not racist but put in the context of many comments he's made before that border on racism it is quickly becoming clear that our POTUS is racist. It may be born of ignorance, narcissism or nationalism or all of the above but he is racist. I've been careful not to say this previously but when reviewing the totality of his comments on Mexicans (immigrants or the judge), muslims, asians, blacks or broad statements like this the fact is inescapable.
2. What's being missed in most of the analysis is that Trump is applying broad sterotypes and making policy decisions on those not on actual data. For example, if you look at immigrants from Nigeria they have a higher college degree rate than the overall US rate (40% to 33%). Most immigrants have a quality that Americans are losing more and more...work ethic. It's that work ethic that has made Americans "soft" and moreso with each subsequent generation that is more affluent than their parents. Painting these countries with broad condemnations and applying that to the individuals is the true insult.

 

Here's a third: As gross and inappropriate as it was, Trump wasn't saying this in a speech. He was saying this in what he naively thought was an internal discussion (which goes to prove that Trump still isn't truly a conservative, because he doesn't see himself that way and honestly believes that the democrats will like him if he works with them, and so why would they be looking for chances to crucify him in the media?)

Here's a fourth: Dick Durbin and Harry Reed have both made up facts and/or statements about GOP rivals in the past, and while I still tend to believe that Trump probably said this, it doesn't change the fact that this appears to be a stunt meant to derail the DACA talks or try to gain leverage to force Trump to sign a blank check. Schumer and Durbin are pure scumbags, and if they were the source of this information, I'd say they were lying. As it is, who knows what was said.

Here's a fifth: liberals can't say "sh**thole" enough when talking about places they don't like - usually referring to Southern states or cities. I have zero patience for the hypocrisy of hyperventilation about a sentiment that they express on a continual basis about most of this country, and one which is openly touted by leftists whenever you put a mike or a keyboard in front of them. Let's go ask someone in Hollywood what they think about moving to Des Moines. See what they say.

Here's a sixth: Trump needs to shut his trap, put away his phone, and govern. He may or may not be a racist as how I would define it (i.e. hates people based on their race), but he certainly fits the definition based on how society views it today. So if people want to call him that, great. I don't feel compelled to defend him. But every time he says something stupid, leftists come out and make it impossible to agree with them because their conclusions are so hysterical that they defy any common reason.

 

Under those statements, one could easily say the Obamas are racist.

 

The Aziz story seems to be the #MeToo movement jumping the shark.

 

African immigrants seem to learn English and make a life for themselves here, and don’t seem to be our problem, even if most of the governments in Africa are horrible. Africans are very cool in general, often very delightful amid abject poverty. Still it is true that something—maybe tribalism or colonialism or something else—has prevented almost any progress.

 

I remember Obama saying that his grandma was a typical white person and nobody cared. The same left calls the American South a ******** and then cries when Trump(supposedly) uses the same statement. The left and their manufactured outrage is a joke.

 

When did we start holding the POTUS to the standard of the boisterous friend at the bar? Y'all are literally comparing what some random tweeting guy says to the POTUS. When comparing the comments to "liberals" that's what you are doing in essence. Can we lower the bar any further? Next it will be "well the BLM or KKK uses this language so why not Trump"? I've never voted for a buddy to POTUS because guess what...they'd suck at the job. We collectively need to raise our standards again rather than lowering them simply to justify the malfeasence of our team captain's behavior.

What's surprising in this conversation is that bystander's father would be one of the people that Trump is lambasting with this language. bystander is a testament to the success his father brought to bear through a solid work ethic and what appears to be a desire for a better life for himself and his family. That's the personification of the American Dream. It's an ideal that is dying and this "faux outrage" is trying to save it while some on this board kick dirt on the ideal as it's being lowered into the ground, fearful that someone else might beat them to the dream by working harder.

 

Yet another hoax