Unit2Sucks said:
It's the height of idiocy to believe that Trump is anti-PC. Anyone believe he's being anything other than PC when he talks about Christianity and Evangelicals? How does he really feel about coal miners and his other working class "heroes"? How about the uneducated that he professes love for? How about the men and women in our armed forces (other than Generals)? How about women (oh well I guess he doesn't even pretend to respect them so this one is pretty close to honest)?
He's basically just choosing to be PC where it lines up with his preferred identity politics. If there was a hot mic where he spoke truthfully about these groups it would make for great theater but surprise exactly no one who has a functioning brain.
But sure, social justice warriors and non-offensive speech is the real problem in this country.
you're making arguments against positions nobody here is necessarily taking, miscomprehending terms (identity politics), engaging in semantics by saying Trump has views he doesn't share for his own sake (of course he does; the list is endless) in order to claim he's not PC relative to D.C. political and social culture.
I never assigned a # to the hierarchy of problems and where the grievance industry (a for-profit network that builds wealth as they convince groups and individuals they are helpless victims through propaganda and lies) or the consequences of a culture that rejects facts, truth and diversity of intellectual thought as a means to protect the weak-minded who are, of course, victims (this is going on at our beloved university). I do think they're concerning, and I think they are grave to some extent, particularly for minorities themselves, as they have the most at stake. in terms of negative and positive consequences of cultural changes. You cleverly use the term "non-offensive" which is again disingenuous. The push-back against PC culture isn't a principled disdain for that which does NOT offend (and you know this), it is the rejection of the attempt to silence speech, or equate speech with a physical action in spite of whether the speech is true/false/reasoned/unreasoned/important/unimportant.
The liberal Robert Rubin defined identity politics aptly I thought:
Quote:
People who place IDENTITY, usually based on immutable characteristics in a pecking order of social importance such as race, gender, and religion, where victimhood is the highest virtue to be had. This oppression Olympics allows groups to compete for who is the most oppressed, thus the most virtuous. And if someone isn't as oppressed as you, then you have full authority to oppress them accordingly. So BLM can protest a gay right's march. White gay men can be banned from leading LGBT organizations on college campuses. Pro-life women can be kicked out of women's right's marches. This backward ideology which demands that we judge each other not by the content of their character but on the color of our skin or some other baked-in trait...It loves all of its minority groups to behave as monoliths. So if you don't subscribe to the ideas that the groupthink has attributed to you based on those immutable characteristics, you must be cast out.
Group identity has been paramount -- when the individual is reduced to their assigned group identity and also ascribed viewpoints on that basis -- that's engaging in identity politics. "You're a white male? I can sum up enough about you, and none of it is very positive. For one, your points of view don't matter and you're inherently privileged and immoral for not denouncing it". "You're a trans woman? I can sum up enough about you, you're a victim of society, so you're virtuous, you're liberal....You're not a liberal? GTFO"