The HP Political and Social Issues forums have become a caricature of what they used to be.
I miss the good ol' days of dissenting opinions. I miss the voices of those non-PC, non-polite voices that added the fire to many discussions.
It seems that now-a-days everyone tries to be soooo polite and non-offending. And our voices are so few. What's the count now, a half-dozen regular participants? It used to be dozens. What about contrary opinions? There used to be multiple opinions, now there are only a couple.
These forums may not be important to HP, but they were, (are?), a valuable part of my online activities. As Randy mentioned to me in an email, maybe there are other venues to pursue if one's participation here isn't important.
I have decided to be a Dr. Seuss advocate. The PC world can kiss my abacus. Enough is enough. Really, we have reached a point where Dr. Suess is being attacked! I am going to join Cred's army—except on the other side. PC delicate feelings be damned. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Well, that's interesting. I did not realize anyone else felt like me on this issue. It seems that every time I respond with a contrary view I am accused of being rude or arrogant or not understanding what is being discussed, yada yada yada.
I miss the good ol' days, too, but I think we experienced a wave of snowflakes hitting the "report" button over every little thing and now people are afraid of getting banned.
In all my time here I have never "hit the report button." But I think you are right.
I have when I was called a racist... Otherwise, I have not hit it either. I have been ban several times. So, yeah some are hitting that button.
Wow, when I go sites with disagreement of the handling of the CO - VID!!! It feels like the dozen angry men judging me.
A resounding, thunderous clap. I totally agree w/you Gus.
In my view, Randy made a great point there are other venues to explore. Some offering current events that in reality are more important due to being current., what's going on now before our eyes. Here at Hp's, we do touch on current, but as a rule, revert to the past... Which truly has its place, but a better balance would be nice.
I find the users here are diverse, and most do give a good amount of"fire".
There are not many using the forum, and it seems not all jump in and offer threads to sink our teeth into.
You made mention of how few are joining in --- post it and they will come. If one does not have fresh subjects or subjects are stale users lose interest.
You brought up PC culture, this is a good subject in itself. Lot's of avenues one could follow delving into PC culture. But, I don't see a thread on it.
That subject is a wonderful can of worms.
We have a brand new administration, that offers a cornucopia of daily news. The Den's are actually going at warp speed to bring in their New America.
Other forums offer diversity via and current news. I am not sure about your thought the users here can't stand a little fire. Most appear to speak their minds. Most here can "give one what for"...
I see a problem that we seem to have two sides right and left. Some may not realize some of us jump back and forth and are not stuck in one mindset. This causes confusion due to today's society, as a rule, has split and there is no room or place for one that moves from that norm.
You want good ol' days --- it starts with you, bring them back.
"You want good ol' days --- it starts with you, bring them back."
Ouch, that's a fair point.
PC threads abounded a few years ago. Quill, (remember Quill?), and I beat it to death. But maybe this new 'woke' trend is saying it's time for some more conversation about it.
"Cred's Army", I am flattered, GA. I am right up there with "Hogan's Heroes".
The "regulars" to the forums have been reduced in size from what was the case in the past. I am in favor of "The more, the merrier", as they say.
I have 2 or 3 regulars that are generally sympathetic to my views and I being sympathetic to their points of view.
Yes, I am a strident 50,000 watt voice for the American Left, but not totally beyond reason. Somebody has to do it, as the Right and its advocates are so certain that they hold the very universe in their hands, protectors of "God and Country" and all of that stuff...
So, I throw down the gauntlet and implore those with different opinions to challenge me. I will still respect them in the morning, that is a promise.
Your point about everybody being so touchy is true and makes it necessary for one to step lightly to avoid offending people on a personal level, but I will rip errant ideas to shreds.
I am with you about the need to invite ever more divergent views in on the discussions. It just makes it all that much more fun and challenging.
I look forward to hearing from all of the forum participants, fair or foul, each day for the opportunity to exercise, sharpen my pen and improve the delivery of my points of view.
I am not an army but simply, through experience and an extensive study of American history, finds comfort from well within the left side of the current political divide
Your delivery is so good... You get your point across, you back up your opinions, and yeah you take good jabs. But, you don't make it personal. Hard to get pissed off when one conducts themself so honestly. Sometimes you piss me off really good, but it's hard to argue with one that really has cracked a shell, and backed up their point.
Thanks for the compliment.
You asked why there is so much focus on Trump now that he is out of office? Perhaps if he made a more concerted effort to stay out of the limelight and quietly retire in a manner similar to his predecessors, he would cease to be front page news. Look at the splash and the verbal retributions that he promised his "unfaithful" at the CPAC last Sunday?
Yes, he did speak at CPAC, which is not traditionally done. But, he said more or less the same as he had been saying before he left office. Not sure I would say he keeps himself in the news anymore. However, with many different investigations, I would think he will be in and out of our news.
I think concentrating on Trump and his past could prevent us from seeing what's under our noses. Lots of trouble brewing in the country, it is bound to corner us sooner or later.
I agree with you and I would be happy to debate with you all day, GA, because you are reasonable and logical.
However, Trump has ushered in the QAnon party and I simply don't wish to debate with people who believe in conspiracy theories. What's the point?
I have said this before. Maybe time to move on from Trump. There is tons of political news we could be discussing. If I read you correctly, you just have no desire to communicate with some that supported Trump, that anyone that supported him supports QAnon conspiracies. Trump is gone, we have a new administration. Have you no interest in keeping an eye on what's going on presently?
Actually, I can tolerate those that supported Trump up until recently because the alternative was Hillary Clinton and I can understand why folks just couldn't stomach her and chose the alternative. Absolutely no problem with that decision.
However, anyone who supports Trump now is a traitor to this country and the Constitution.
I can see you have a strong opinion in regard to Trump supporters. I only had hoped to move on, and discuss more current events.
I would guess you showed me the door... And did it in a way that made it honest. I will keep out of your hair. No problem
Thanks Crankalicious. Regarding your last statement about Trump and QAnon, I have some contrary thoughts, but since I have a new task in front of me I will use your comment to open a new thread and respond to it there.
I agree with much of what you say. I can compare to ten years ago where there were closer to more than many rather than a little more than handful today. Yet, we see in the regular HP forum where it is a little more than a handful too unless someone posting is seeking help to pass QAP. Ten years ago at certain times of the day for this topic it was closer to a chatroom as posts came in fast and furious at certain times of the day. I have been reading both forums again since 2015 and the regulars have not changed. And, I do remember Quill.
I think as far as new blood one should look at the new blood HP receives today as well as those who have left. On my home feed the majority for articles are from India and Pakistan, which won't be interested in this forum, though they have political articles for their countries. And, the bulk of new Hubbers are after money from their Hub adventure not venturing into the forums if they know they exist.
I am mixed on PC use here. I am even mixed on what PC is today, though I know the definition. I agree with PP that fear of a ban may come into play. I agree with some of what Sharlee posted. I do see antagonistic thrusts tossed about. I use to get a chuckle out of Randy's posts and they were as sharp as a spear at times. Do you think the lack of PC left with his demise?
"I have decided to be a Dr. Seuss advocate. The PC world can kiss my abacus. Enough is enough. Really, we have reached a point where Dr. Suess is being attacked! I am going to join Cred's army—except on the other side. PC delicate feelings be damned. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."
Just a thought in regard to offering opposing opinions and presenting one's opinion adding a bit of firey gusto.
When it comes to sharing opposing views, as a conservative I feel somewhat responsible for defending conservative views? Hoping ultimately to contribute to building a generation that respects our past, our history, our values our morals? It may be time to take a long hard look at the fact ---although some of us are perhaps not encouraging canceled culture, we are doing little to discourage it either. Have Conservatives become complacent, have we become a dying breed? It is time to say PC delicate feelings be damned!
We need to fight fire with fire... When insulted for our views by lofty leftists. Knock them off their air-filled pedestals using facts, and common sense.
I keep coming back to this thread, going over your thread... I did not dive into the root of the subject pretty much due to one of the bones you felt needed picking... " It seems that nowadays everyone tries to be soooo polite and non-offending. "
Have you ever considered that the forum slumped into discussing subjects that are becoming beat to death? I have noted current political news just does not attract users. If it's not about COVID or PC culture or Trump the thread is ignored. Now, this is fine in itself. Users certainly have a right to pass threads by, due to lack of interst. But could this be the reason there are so few users stopping in?
I can see how users strayed away. Just seems to be a one or two-track conversation. However, it is very obvious media has made every attempt to gear many away from what is truly happening in the new government.
Have a look-see at what threads we have been visiting as of late.
You want the reunite "the good ol' days"? Post what's going on these days...
What happening? President Biden kept his promise and did not let the Republicans derail his COVID relief program. The checks are in the mail.
Also, he is working in earnest to create a national standard for voting to prohibit certain practices that are clearly partisan and exclusionary.
Mr. Biden operates with a 60 percent approval rating, a level that Trump never came close to in any part of his term.
You can bet that I am watching that and am most pleased so far.
I am pleased with what Biden is doing with the pandemic, including letting the experts be front and center without restraint.
I am happy about the passage of the COVID relief bill and pleased with the Democrats' methods for getting it done quickly despite unnecessary and pointless delays by the Republicans.
I am relieved to see intelligence, competence, and civility return to the White House. I like that there is a daily press briefing where a real spokesperson answers real questions , respectfully and thoroughhly, and if she doesn't know the answer she finds out and gets back to the querant.
I am looking forward to seeing what happens with the voting rights bill, which is sorely needed given the tactics being deployed by states GOP legislatures and Governors to make it difficult for their own citizens to vote.
It really does matter who is president. That last guy taught the cynics a lesson in that regard. ;-)
Sorry your thread has been hijacked, GA.
I am not sure you read my comment or fully understood was I was getting at. I was making an attempt to go back to GA"s original opening opinion about what has become of the HP political forum. He shared he longed for the Good Ol' Days when the conversation was fiery, and there were lots of users dropping in to share thoughts.
Hey, I will say you hit on my advice that it would be perhaps more interesting to talk about current events. And great to hear you are up to date on all Biden.
We need a thread on Biden's first weeks in office. Maybe it would reunite the fire? I certainly am up for it.
You make a good point, let's do it.
As a side note, I have tried doing just what you suggest—posting different issue topics, but I never had much success.
That is true, I think the group here is comfortable with the status quo.
And as Jerry Seinfeld would say --- and that's all right.
I have also posted different topics, and get your point. I think demographics is part of why the conversation has died down. Some having a preference of who and what is interesting to them.
Honesty and freedom of speech is imperative to a free society.
This is a strange post.
Hadn't we just four years of non Political Correctness? You just have to reread Trump's Twitter tweets and you see how he changed the political landscape by his language.
Do you want to go back to that? To people calling each other names? To open racisms, sexism and homofobia?
I rather have a hypocrite being polite in the open social arena and at home a redneck, than a redneck who is openly calling racist slurs.
I think Political Correctness is a good thing. A politician or a famous person can't say anything they want. That's the price of fame.
Everything public figures are saying is seen as a role model. So if the president of the United States talks about women as nothing but sex objects, people will find it oké to copy him.
What kind of discussions do you want GA. Political incorrect ones, where everybody is calling each other names, openly projecting their racist and sexist opinions. Or more decent ones where people carefully articulate their thoughts?
You know I am not for nationism or Trump. I don't take stake or stock in political world at all. It's a freak Show.
Catch my post
:Unmasking the Science:
Hard facts. You will see that it not just red donkeys that are in disagreement of the handling of covid.
I never mentioned Covid CastlePaloma. I wasn't talking about Covid.
I don't quite understand the connection between your answer and my comment.
There was a wide range of topics here between right and left. Picked up mix messages from other post from you, I suppose.
Probably the biggest reason forTrump losing was over the death tolls over covid. Or biggest still, it was a selection not an election.
Even though I don't support Trump or really any top lenders because they need slaves.
Agreed. I'm new here, but I'm really tired of PC getting in the way of our pursuit of truth.
A little perspective GA is all that is needed.
I know it seems that "Cred's army" is winning the war, but they are no more winning the war than the "Far Right" was winning it four years ago.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi … erry-finn/
Our society, civilization, social mores and pillars are awash in the ebb and flow of time, the world struggles with its instant connectivity and inability to keep anything private anymore... we are becoming a global people whether we want it or not, people will struggle with identity and propriety for long after our time in HubPages is over.
I understand your "perspective thought Ken, and regarding our current direction regarding social mores and identities I would point out the perspective of how the trend has developed.
In the 20th century, the primary objection to social mores intrusions was the crudest and blatant offenses, such as Huck Finn's use of "nigger," in our 21st century the objection is now as small as calling someone of Japanese descent "a Japanese"' and a primary color-using caricaturist giving them a yellow face.
Instead of arguing against the cudgel of "nigger" we are now crucifying the sin of paper-cut scale offensiveness. The particular instances of these latest trends really shouldn't merit serious national consideration on their own, but when they accumulate to the level of 'a thousand cuts' then they do become a major social mores issue that should not be ignored.
Your perspective is coming from a position of privilege, or so the argument from the "Left" would say.
You see these things not as necessary social deconstructions required as we move forward into a non-white, non-western centric world, but as attacks on things you do not consider offensive.
There are few things that the myriad of groups and interests that one would consider "Left" as well as those we would consider 'Foreign" have in common, but the one thing that unites them is their desire to see the downfall of Western Culture, and what that entailed throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
I would say America today is at a point in time where the very things that made it a unique and powerful society and nation are now passing, are being assailed, or deconstructed, or labeled.
America cannot be considered an exceptional nation... it was built on slavery and war.
It's Forefathers cannot be considered as inspirations or heroes, they were slave owners and warmongers that slaughtered those that stood in their way (Native Americans, Mexicans, Spanish and French).
Do you see why Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" is considered a slap in the face to so many?
America was never great, America was built by evil tyrannical men, that considered all others, be they female, black, red, or yellow to be inferior, to be property, to be something needing to be swept out of the way.
America cannot be saved, it must be torn down and built anew, its history rewritten by those who see our Forefathers for the wrongdoers that they were, not as heroes... as they were such reprehensible people, what they created must be considered suspect, the Constitution being a prime example.
Those trying to preserve the past, to hold back the tides of change, are merely ... well ... this is No Country for Old Men.
"You see these things not as necessary social deconstructions required as we move forward into a non-white, non-western centric world, but as attacks on things you do not consider offensive"
Ken, No one is saying anything about non-white, it just a matter of inclusion of others rather than exclusion, and I think that that is appropriate. I don't see anyone speaking of changing the fundamental linchpins of American government, rule by law.
America is just another nation, like others, it just so happens that I live here and I tend to be biased in favor of the nation in which I live. Yes, it was built of slavery, war and appropriations of land without permission.
It is a shade of gray, the forefathers with their insights into the ideas of self government were heroic. The point many of us make is that they were not without flaws and glaring hypocrisies.
What does it mean to make America Great Again? I mean that resonates with the Right, but has no meaning to me. Depends on how you define "greatness".
"America was never great, America was built by evil tyrannical men, that considered all others, be they female, black, red, or yellow to be inferior, to be property, to be something needing to be swept out of the way."
Yes, in many ways this is true, but not in absolute terms. White supremacy has been an overriding theme as part of the nation's development. And, until recently, they did just that, sweep people who were "undesirable" out of the way.
America is not doomed, it just that people have to change their attitude about things. Work toward what needs to be improved and dispense with the ideas and values that continue to bring us all down and make coexistence amongst an ever more diverse people less likely.
The past is has been shown not to have been fair and just to everyone, so the first time numbers appear to challenge the status quo we insist that we move forward and dispense with the buggy whip and the past due to mere nostalgia. Things must move forward.
You may be right, but a thought comes to mind . . .
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . ."
I have previously spent some time searching for other forums that focus on politics but have not found one as enjoyable or as user friendly as this one. Maybe I'm just too attached to the familiar.
I periodically get fed up and take a break, usually because the one thing I have little tolerance for and zero respect for is the unwillingness to deal in reality. And there's an awful lot of that going on these days. It seems to run hand in hand with the "huffy" response. As Randy would say, the"flounce."
It becomes tiresome trying to talk with someone who believes utter nonsense.
"I periodically get fed up and take a break, usually because the one thing I have little tolerance for and zero respect for is the unwillingness to deal in reality. And there's an awful lot of that going on these days."
Are you sure you don't mean people that don't agree with your personal perception of reality? An example might be Trump's call for people to smash their way into the capital and murder ballot counters and legislators: while your perception is that he did (hope I'm not reading you wrong here), you have nothing but circumstantial evidence and changing his words to mean what he didn't say to support that perception and many do not agree. Or at a minimum do not take your "evidence" to be proof of anything: your perception of what he meant may be correct or it may not.
No, I am referring to, say, believing the election was stolen when there is no evidence that it was.
What you have described is a difference in interpretation of events, not outright denial of events. I can disagree with you and have a discussion as long as we can agree on the basic facts.
Could not have put it better. Some make it so personal they have no room for anyone else's opinion and quickly become offended by it. Even when one goes to the very trouble of adding information on how they came about a given opinion.
That's because other's opinions don't match "reality", whereupon the original poster deteriorates, all too often, into name calling an other means of degrading a responder.
I disagree with GA that this kind of behavior is what we want to see. Healthy disagreement is great - it is often interesting to see those other opinions. The name calling and demonization, not so much; because someone disagrees doesn't make them stupid, traitorous, blind or anything else.
I must say I was a bit shocked to see GA hope for a bit more "firey" behavior. I felt he preferred the calm approach when conversing. I thought he offered (although somewhat aggravating at times) a good balance to the forum. I like lively debate, but don't appreciate the name-calling either. I see no need to get personal as a rule. Sometimes it's necessary to come back a bit harsh.
I agree I like to hear others opinion, gives me perspective on how others view things. There are some on here that just get their point across so well, and even when I may not agree, I can appreciate how they communicate.
I see the problem here as being a problem to move on and discuss present-day news. I like chats that are actually discussing the daily news. And currant news is very relevant and pretty interesting. This forum is stuck in Trump-era news. Many threads start out well but quickly turn to Trump. So much is changing around us and we here just like a broken record -- play it again, and again...
I really don't see any name calling going on. It is against TOS. As for telling someone they are "blind" or "ignorant," it happens to me all the time. It's just an opinion and anyone can refer to me that way all day if they want and I don't care. It's a carefree way to participate, perhaps others should try it.
By the way, I can think of many subjects where I would qualify as ignirant. Blind? Probably that, too, in some areas.
Y'all could toughen up, in my opinion. I might add that you seem "blind" to the insults coming from those you agree with.
It must be that I was less than clear in my message because you are disagreeing with a point I did not intend to make. I was advocating for what Sharlee, (I think), described as "firey" discussions, but not the name-calling and demonization that could be heard from some.
However, relative to that point, we all have the option to scroll right past comments that we deem over-the-line. If someone calls you a name or demonizes your position you have at least three options—two of which I think are valid:
1) scroll right past them and ignore their responses. It won't hurt you and the only force that drives you to respond—in kind would be false pride.
2)address the comment with equal, but civil force. If your point is valid you won't have to stoop to their level to put them in their place, (others will see it, even if the recipient doesn't)—you will lose every time if you do, they have the advantage of experience.
3) Bitch, complain and report the poster.
Guess which of the three I don't think is a valid response.
I can only remember two or three posters that didn't need comment responses to keep their ball rolling. Jake and Colorfulone come to mind.
I have also looked around, with the same results as you. Every time I think I found a possible candidate, a few days of participation reveals they are chock full of keyboard warriors out to prove how smart, or savvy, they are, or how rude they can be. It feels like trying to talk with 14-year-old teenagers out to prove their manhood.
I guess I will just have to try harder to rebuild our HP crew. :-0
I think the point you closed with is the point that makes the difference. It is children's comedy—young, impressionable 3 to 7-year-old minds.
Of course, adults will recognize the examples as stereotype caricatures and laugh at the comedy. A young child won't have the life experience to do the same thing.
If the topic was adult content, I would be right there with you Mike. It would be silly snowflake over-reach. But it isn't, it is young minds that will form concepts based on what they see. They may understand the muppets are just puppets, but they will need an adult to explain that all Chinamen don't have buckteeth and braids.
You were right.
I do believe the forum moderators have learned to lighten up a bit. After the weird bans for 'arguing' were implemented, I guess they realized that traffic might have been affected.
Like Gus, I do enjoy coming here to read all about the propaganda being fed to people from differing political views.
It's nice to see The Bachelor and Dr. Seuss headlining the most important causes among the right. It's not like there is much else going on in the world right now.
Since I started The Bachelor thread and commented on the Dr. Seuss controversy, I am feeling a bit defensive Valeant.
I would say that if you think the Right's issues are with the individual claims, then you are missing the point—at least the point I am trying to make. It is the direction indicated by the fact that these individual issues are issues that is the cause of angst for me, speaking for the Right. This young generation that is propelling this trend will be the coming governing generation, and that is scary for what I want America to be in the future.
So someone hoping to be famous had their social media posts scrutinized and nitpicked. Some people think that liking posts of the Confederate flag or supporting Donald Trump to be signs that a person tends towards being accepting of racism. Certainly, multiple instances of criticizing people for dating black people helps to cement that opinion.
One could make the case that it's similar to GOP Senators and Neera Tanden. Suddenly, offensive social media posts matter to them and they decided to cancel her appointment.
It's not just an issue for the right. But if it's going to be an issue, they should certainly hold themselves to the same standard.
I think I got a little misdirected when I spoke of Kirkconnel's issues. The start of and the main point of my OP was about Chris Harrison and the reaction to his plea for a bit of grace and tolerance until facts are examined.
However, as the original racist charge against Kirkconnel was the Old South Party, I don't think that qualifies as a charge of racism either. And I don't think we can know if she was "liking" the post because of the Confederate flag or, (I think more likely), her two friends in the image.
Not sure if anyone considered this ---- I actually do this myself. Half the time I go through my Facebook page and systematically like almost everything. Facebook can become tedious, yet you don't want to skip past your friend's comments. It prevents --- "you did not like my comment". Kirkconnel was and is at the age where peers matter, right or wrong. Human nature.
Yeah, I don't see an issue with the Old South Party. But that wasn't the original charge. That was one of the final things. One of the first claims was about her criticisms of friends dating black guys.
And video and social media history had been exposed, so not sure what 'facts' Harrison wanted tolerance for. That just comes off as trying to excuse some soft racism.
What, exactly, do you think America will be in the future if this trend continues? And, for me, it would be helpful to know exactly how you define this trend that is so scary to you.
I am trying to understand.
I would like to know "that" as well.
GA: what is it that you want America to be in the future?
As I explained to PrettyPanther, what I want for our future is simple; a nation of strong character, tolerance for diverse opinions, and acceptance of individuality.
This trend of controversies I am speaking of; the muppets, Dr. Seuss, et al. is a trend contrary to all of those goals.
It is not the legitimacy of any of the actual claims made in those examples that is the big problem, it is that the making of those claims is being legitimized.
"I fear an American future of a lack of strength of character, tolerance for individuality, and tolerance for diversity of opinions."
IMO, we are at this very juncture presently. It would be hard not to note with all of the canceled cultures, groupthink, and a frantic attempt to do away without history, our traditions, actually our morels and values.
In my, view the intelligent will win in the end... Just use that as a mantra, it will get you through the hardest day. For now, practice placating, there is no other way to live around all the crazy that is being pursued by parts of our society. ( I used the term parts of society as a general term, not referring to any one person or persons) .
I understand your advice, but no worries, this thing isn't keeping me up at night, it is just something to rail against. ;-)
Perhaps it should be keeping us all tossing and turning. We could wake up one morning, and say what the hell happened.
Did not hope to imply anything. Just shared my thoughts. Was it not you that hoped to invigorate the forum? Can't do that without sharing my thoughts.
Was it, not you that stated ---- "The HP Political and Social Issues forums have become a caricature of what they used to be.
I miss the good ol' days of dissenting opinions. I miss the voices of those non-PC, non-polite voices that added the fire to many discussions."
However, considering me notified --- And I will put it on my list. GA -- no personal opinion advice. Man, I dislike skirting around all the unspoken rules. To much work to presenting PC comments.
So, share or don't share? Or share a bit, and keep on my white gloves?
"However, considering me notified --- And I will put it on my list. GA -- no personal opinion advice. Man, I dislike skirting around all the unspoken rules. To much work to presenting PC comments. "
What the hell? Where did that come from? Simply because I assured you I understood what you meant but not to worry because it wasn't causing me any anxiety?
If you want to be considered "notified," then consider this; you will never have to 'read between the lines' to determine if I have a problem with a comment.
I actually thought I was being 'reassuring' to you in my response. My bad.
Strong character, agree. Tolerance for diverse cultures and acceptance of nationality would be equally as good for the country. Not sure you'll ever convince me to have tolerance for the diverse opinion of intolerance or white supremacy - which your posts seems to include.
Like when you've got the Creighton men's basketball coach Greg McDermott telling his team this after their recent loss to Xavier:
“Guys, we got to stick together. We need both feet in. I need everybody to stay on the plantation. I can’t have anybody leave the plantation.”
That's not asking to be PC. That's just asking not to be stupid.
Well, yeah, that was a poor choice of words. Probably as bad as if he had said ". . . stay on the reservation" but, is the thought wrong? Would having a little tolerance mean understanding what he meant—regardless of the dumb choice of words?
How did you conclude that my wish for a tolerance of a diversity of opinions meant also tolerating intolerant or white supremacy opinions? Are you saying I should have listed what diversity of opinions I felt should be tolerated? I can't do that, that judgement is above my paygrade. I simply rely on common-sense interpretations of what I mean when I say something.
By that standard, does your thought indicate you think I would support such opinions?
How about, as a starting point for discussion, we are all intolerant only of intolerance?
White supremacists are hardly tolerant of others; we need not be tolerant of them. Same for racists. Same for the radical Muslims out to kill an infidel. And so on.
But if your are tolerant of others, we own tolerance in return.
Well, your media sources sure do have you pretty upset and in defense of the woman who has multiple instances of criticizing her white friends for dating black guys. Or Harrison who thinks we should just give her a pass on that kind of issue.
And you seem to be in defense of the image below that refers to an African island and a canary, but then have its inhabitants looking like monkeys.
At this point, your fighting against PC culture is in a direct overlap with you being able to excuse examples of soft racism. So, my concern seems more than valid about how much you are willing to tolerate.
If someone was looking to be offended, I can see why they might consider this offensive. Canaries don't look like that.
Soft racism? Is that an intentional racism? Is this a degree of being pregnant argument?
Also, if you look around for early to mid-20th-century African tribe natives you will find images of grass/cloth waist rings, large nose rings and large plated lips very similar to the caricature drawings of the Dr. Seuss's native Africans. But portraying those real images is probably racist too, right?
And how many of those mid-20th-century Africans were depicted as monkeys? Again, great job glossing over the most racist part of the image.
The most racist 'interpretation' of the images. Do monkeys have tuffs' sticking out from the top of their heads? Nose rings? Where were the tails?
They were caricatures. They were caricatures. We all understand caricatures. That some can find offense in these is because they want to.
Maybe that thought could be an instance of semi-firm racism?
Wow. Your last two comments are awfully disappointing.
Evidently, some of us don't understand that when you caricature a citizen of Africa as a monkey, that is definitely seen as racist to African Americans.
A citizen of Africa? Is that really how you think Dr. Seuss intended this caricature to be understood?
Is it impossible for you to look at his caricature as a portrayal of common images of tribal Africans of the time? If it is, then how do you explain away the truth of his portrayal provided by photographs of just such tribal Africans? Wikimedia has tons of such period images.
It seems that what "some of [you] don't understand" is the context of the portrayal. All you see is your current 21st-century enlightened morality. And Dr. Seuss has noplace in such sensitive times.
From what I read, he used race as a punchline. With the hate groups that exist in this country, I do not find his humor appropriate for children. And I am not alone in that thinking.
And I'm sure wiki has lots of images of nooses and burning crosses from that period as well. That doesn't make them any less racist. And being consistent in using imagery that is seen as racist does not make it any better.
As noted below, curation is something many authors have chosen to use to remove themes or images that may have unintentionally come off as racist.
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/b … interview/
And what I see is the historical slurs of people comparing black people to monkeys or Chinese people and slanty eyes. If the people that own the books that make those slurs want to make changes, so be it. That's their own right, under the law.
As I explained to PrettyPanther, what I want for our future is simple; a nation of strong character, tolerance for diverse opinions, and acceptance of individuality.
I don't know if we have always been this way and if it is contrary to human nature to not gather into groups and to openly accept the contrary ideas of others. it has never really been done, has it?
We are never going to have peace if we scrap of what may be minutia in the face of far more important issues.
I cannot take my erasure and do away with Mark Twain, DW Griffith, David O Selznick, I can't so touchy about everything otherwise, I would be POed all of the time, all day long and that is not good for my health and general outlook.
So, I take them and their artwork within the context of the time in which it was produced rather than using a 21st century yardstick to evaluate them. Under such circumstances, they can never have ground to stand upon. Obviously, in the time that elapsed, we as a society have become more attentive to diversity and welcoming of it, but we have to stay on that course.
it is always easy to stand with your own tribe, it take effort to be open minded and tolerant and that is the challenge that all of humanity faces. It may come to a matter of evolution of the species, these tendencies are found everywhere. People fight over which hand they believe God eats with, if he eats at all. We need to climb over our infancy as a civilization. It may well come through technological innovation or we can face our total annihilation..
Although more details are needed to flesh out the whole of it, I fear an American future of a lack of strength of character, tolerance for individuality, and tolerance for diversity of opinions.
I do understand that we, as a society, have always had those issues, my concern is it seems to be trending to become the norm rather than the exception.
Maybe an analogy might be if the harmful, (as I see it), Quaker practice of 'shunning' was trending to become a practice of all Christianity.
Thank you. I must say, I do not at all see what you do. I think these issues are being magnified by right-wing media at this time as a distraction from the highly popular passage of the COVID relief/stimulus bill by Democrats
For example, I finally took a look at the Dr. Seuss issue and I really don't understand the big deal. The publisher is removing five lesser known titles due to some racist overtones. Sounds like a good thing to me and I would not even consider it close to "canceling" Dr. Seuss.
I asked above where you heard or saw the. Bachelor story because, like I said, I had heard nothing about it until I saw it here. If these issues were highly important to liberals/progressives, wouldn't I have heard about them without having to dig? My progressive sources are currently focused on important, major issues that have a real impact on our lives, like the passage of the COVID relief package and the bill to protect our right to vote.
I think the reaction from Fox News and other right-wing media is just a buncha noise created to distract from passage of the highly popular stimulus bill. This decision was made by the Seuss family and the publisher and, unless I am mistaken, involves a few illustrations from a few lesser-known books. Books get revised and updated all the time. It is common practice to change with the times. And, this is children's fictiion so the responsibility to do no harm is much higher. I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared had it not been blown up by right-wing media. This is not that big of a deal. The changes do no harm to anyone but are a positive change for those who might be otherwise harmed.
By the way, perpetuation of racial stereotypes hurts everyone, especially vulnerable children.
As unbelievable as it may seem, (due to my past comments), I completely agree with your comment.
My problem has not been with the promoted trivial specific instances; ie. The Bachelor, Dr. Seuss, et.al, but with the legitimacy given to these instances.
I am looking at it, (the cancel culture controversy), like a crack in your windshield. It is just the hint of a crack in the bottom corner now-no worries or impairment, but we all know that if we don't fix it, it will soon become a major crack across your whole windshield impairing your vision of the road ahead.
But still, I do not see this particular instance as perpetuating racial stereotypes. As you say, it's children reading and seeing fantastical caricatures of characters. Of course, the adults, now that is different. They hit the honeypot with this one—blacks as monkeys, can it get any worse?
Okay, but I'm still having a hard time understanding what you fear will be the negative end result of changing cultural norms to avoid treating some as lesser than others, or to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
I understand that you don't see my perspective. But to be clear, I am not against doing away with "perpetuating harmful stereotypes," and certainly not against doing away with "treating some as lesser than others," I am all for both. What I don't see is the Dr. Seuss issue as being such a case.
If that perspective is not understood, then it should be impossible to explain my defense of the Muppets' 'disclaimers' issue.
You are looking at the road now, I am looking at the road ahead. Sort of like that "First they came for the Jews . . . " trope. Unfortunately, for this conversation, that old trope is being proven to be prescient.
First, it was Mark Twain, then Shakesphere, then the Muppets, and now Dr. Seuss. What is next?
But all of the creations of Twain, Shakespeare, and The Muppets still exist. So, what is lost, exactly?
This is hard for me because it's GA, who I respect. But, sometimes I think what is meant by "the good ol' days is simply a time when white men's words and actions were rarely questioned, much less resulted in negative consequences.
Now that is just plain baloney. The context of "good ol' days was, (until IslandMom hijacked it), specific to the topic of participation in this forum.
Other than her misapplication of the term, I doubt you could find a reference to the "good ol' days," in reference to this topic, anywhere in my comments.
Contrarily, my explanations have all referred to future days, (relative to this current discussion topic), not times of the past.
Maybe the proof of my thoughts can be seen in this thread. Because I hold a contrary view on this issue, three posters that previously appreciated my logic and reason are now saying or implying that I would support White Supremecy, my thoughts are disappointing, and that I yearn for the "good ol' days" when "white men's words and actions were rarely questioned, much less resulted in negative consequences."
And what prompted those changes of view? An intolerance for a contrary perspective.
Hold on now, don't take that example as me feeling maligned or offended. I am neither, (I always thought I was given too much credit ;-) ). I understand the different perspectives in this conversation, I only offered that opinion change as an example of the point I have been trying to make.
From the perspective of a woman who grew up watching movies where women were literally taken over a man's knee and spanked for being too feisty, I do have a hard time understanding how you can object to efforts to bring children's literature into the modern era. Again, none of these creations have been canceled. They are merely being viewed through a more enlightened lens and handled accordingly. Children will continue to read Dr. Seuss,Twain and Shakespeare. The sky is not falling.
*sigh* After all of our efforts, we are still talking about this as if we were talking about two different things.
Sorry, I'm trying. I guess I am misunderstanding your repeated references to "cancel culture."
That pejorative is in.
There've always being public outrages. Business have always take into account public favor or disapproval to make decisions. But now there are new (different) voices, and are amplified. So now it is a problem.
Btw, I read something yesterday so relevant about what we have being discussing. Here are some lines.
Over time, you shrink the parts of self that feel other. I got so good at minimizing my Asian side that when classmates switched from calling me "Ping-Pong Pang" to "Twinkie" — yellow on the outside, White on the inside — I felt relief, and that I would make it, after all. I was now named after a high-calorie snack cake — what was more American than that?
It was convenient to dismiss racial slights, to keep my head down and not ruffle feathers if it meant I could ignore what was happening.
For many people, that's no longer the case... And they get a pejorative.
The tolerance for individual perspectives. If you say something good about Huck Finn it is obvious you are a racist. If you like certain Shakespeare works you must be a racist, and if you disagree with the Muppet's disclaimers then you are a soft-racist.
Now you sound like wilderness. "If you say something good about Huck Finn it is obvious you are a racist."
Sorry, but that is ridiculous and I think you know it. The same applies to your statement about Shakespeare.
"...and if you disagree with the Muppet's disclaimers then you are a soft-racist."
This one might be true, but so what? Are you upset about, in your view, being unfairly judged? Imagine that!
I think we've exhausted this subject. It seems to boil down to you not liking being viewed as defending racism. Sorry ab out tgat, but your opinion of what is it is not racist might not be the most relevant, you know?
Yep, Your first and last statements nailed it. We have exhausted this topic, and I do know that my opinions may not be the most relevant. But, since I do hold those opinions, I do think they are the most right. :-0
I think this topic is one of degrees Sharlee. I think it is important that we hold on to the knowledge and lessons of our past, and I think it is also important that our values and societal mores continue to change for the better.
However, I think this "cancel culture" thing is not a change for the better. As Ken described it, I think it is an effort to arbitrarily define "acceptable" thinking, and as you define it, (although I am hesitant to use this description), a concerted effort to enforce 'groupthink'.
But I don't think conservatives have become complacent. On some issues, I think they are 'fighting the good fight', but on some others, I think they are 'tilting at windmills'
Yes, always good to grow, learn, co-mingle new values and morals that make good sense. I very much agree to cancel culture is not changing society for the better.
I will be honest, I think conservatives are well out-matched at this point. I guess I feel Ken is right in regards to where America is headed. I see A see a short destructive road before us.
Destroying anything is easy, it's the rebuild that can be hard.
That is simply not true. You can recognize the merits of a piece of work and still see how it is problematic, xenophobic, racist, etc. That is different from saying I see nothing wrong with them.
With your last example, that could be true. Because a disclaimer does not affects you. Why would anyone disagree to that? Maybe you see nothing wrong with them. Does that means everybody must think/feel the same? More so if they are part of a group depicted as a sterotype. You mentioned tolerance for individual perspectives. Isnt that ironic?
Ironic? As in having tolerance for someone having a different perspective?
My comments may seem to indicate that to you, but I say that is because I think you are missing my point.
I can understand and tolerate that some may see the Seuss caricatures as monkeys. I just disagree. But that's life. What I won't tolerate is this current direction of intolerance for my contrary opinion. As in, if I just see them as exaggerated caricatures of true-life depictions and not racist-motivated portrayals, then I must also be racist.
We are probably on different sides of the irony coin, but I also see the irony.
I can understand and tolerate that some may see the Seuss caricatures as monkeys. I just disagree. But that's life.
As long as they say nothing. Right?
What I won't tolerate is this current direction of intolerance for my contrary opinion. As in, if I just see them as exaggerated caricatures of true-life depictions and not racist-motivated portrayals, then I must also be racist.
So you wont tolerate their intolerance to your opinion by being intolerant to their opinion that you must be a racist? Oooh oook. SMH
For what its worth, I dont think that makes YOU racist, but def ignorant about the history of racism and racist motivated caricatures.
We are probably on different sides of the irony coin, but I also see the irony.
Yes, must be.
In case you missed this: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/351 … ost4178488
I was wrong.
I have explained what next, and the reasons why.
The reasoning is sound, the "Western Civilization" is not going to dominate the world moving forward, nor is the "white" perspective going to be the predominant viewpoint going forward.
It is best that references such as presented here be eradicated from "common culture" and these in particular from "acceptable reading".
As for the comparison another made to Mien Kampf, it being published and accessible, the difference is one stands as a warning and is likely only read by the well educated, and another stands as entertainment to children and was considered, until now, acceptable.
Majority of whites are now living on the Indian reserves too. Its the wealthy white who mainly suck.
You and I can look at images of Africans being depicted as monkeys and disagree that it constitutes racism in the same way that both of us can look at a burning cross and potentially be of differing opinions about what that means. You can certainly assume your differing opinion is the correct one on both topics.
Does it mean you are a racist? Not necessarily. But to remain in denial that his depiction of black people isn't steeped in racism is pretty far out there.
Damn, damn, and double damn! I did a Google image search to see if your image was fake. One of the links related to it has knocked the legs from under my Dr. Seuss argument.
Here is what turned the table for me: A Day in Our Shoes
It turns out that Dr. Seuss was a bit of a racist in real life. I know ya'll tried to tell me that, but apparently, I am a slow learner. So, relative to my arguments about his purposeful intent in the Africans/monkeys caricature, . . give me a minute . . . I think I was wrong'. It seems in-character that the monkey portrayal was purposeful.
I am not abandoning my thoughts on the danger of the trend I have been criticizing but relative to my defense of this particular issue. I no longer think I have a leg to stand on. Mea culpa.
Thank you! (Not for accepting you were wrong, but yes, for that too.) But for taking the time to learn and educate yourself even when thinking you were right.
Glad I was right about you.
The Doctor was an enigma, doing some stuff that was racist and sexist, while also fighting for civil rights on other occasions.
Glad I could finally help you see what many could recognize. Do we need to go into why white people mocking their friends for dating black people is bad too? ;>
Well, at least Sharlee waited five pages this time to try and hijack the thread to something else.
Hijacked? I doubled back to the first couple paragraphs of GA's comment. Where he was longing for Good Ol' Days, missing fiery conversation. I think my comment well addressed his comment.
And then placed a link to take us elsewhere, where you start a thread every other day or so.
The link was to Politics and Social Issues Discussions here on HP's. The link offers a list of threads, just to prove my point in regards to the subject matter we have been discussing.
Politics and Social Issues Discussions... COVID COVID COVID MORE COVID ---- Get it?
What I get is that multiple times in the last month you've inserted a link into someone else's thread leading to a different part of the site. In most, it's to a thread you've started. In this case, it's to the topic page where you have eleven different threads created.
We all know how to navigate the forums. We don't need you putting self-serving links into our threads. Get it?
I will assume if the moderator has a problem with me adding a link to another page here on HP's they will notify me. Other users can make their own decision in regards to checking out any given link. Not sure how the HP Forum discussion page is self-serving?
You want a hijack --- Dr. Seuss's books were written in the '30s when racism was rapid. It's odd that it took liberals decades to recognize they find his art racist. We have a full-blown racist sitting in the White House. Can you spell hypocrite? Remarks that would be hard to explain away as anything else but racist.
by collegedad 8 years ago
What does the term "politically correct" mean to you?I was recently told that I needed to be "politically correct" in my statements. I won't elaborate here, but I have a strong opinion about folks who abuse social entitlement programs and this rubs some the wrong way. When...
by Allen Donald 9 years ago
So I occasionally engage in political debate on the Hubpages forums, but as I do, I wonder if such things aren't partly to blame for the state of our political culture.The forums are fun, if you don't take things too personally, but they do nothing for healthy debate. Most people have no interest...
by Mikeydoes 12 years ago
"The best thing to do is not form your own opinion and just agree with everyone else's."I've found in my life that opinions cause problems. They usually end up having people agree with you(which is great), but they also have people disagree with you. A disagreement can make someone think...
by mbuggieh 9 years ago
A recent essay published in salon.com entitled "Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the right: “Cosmos,” Christians, and the battle for American science" made the following points:"The religious right has been freaking out about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” for what feels like an eternity....
by WTucker 14 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what you feel the amendment actually means.A well regulated militia being necessary to...
by Ashutosh Joshi 3 years ago
Found this on twitter. I can't say bout US but whatever happens in US never stays in there. Personally, PC to me always sounds like liberal way of saying:"Screw you, but have a nice day!"Thoughts, enlightenment???PS:Ignore the top right
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|