This is not a trick question

33055

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 4:17 pm

Fox wrote:

Interesting question.

The Flyover Country Problem
One answer is that much of the left (to distinguish it from Democrats, many of whom, particularly at the level of local politics, are not leftists) is largely concentrated in coastal urban enclaves and has virtually no interaction with the rest of the country. They are genuinely perplexed as to why people don't see the world as they do, and they can't begin to figure out what might be in the hearts and minds of Americans outside their geographic and cultural area.

Despite claiming sophistication, they are actually very provincial. They know people whose skin colors may differ, but those people come from a very narrow range of backgrounds and experiences. They are surrounded by people who have similar jobs and similar educations.

This is the concept of the "cultural elite" that is the focus of so much rebellion. A poster in another thread mentioned Charles Murray and his book, Coming Apart. One of the most fascinating theses in the book is that college admission based on pure meritocracy has had a disturbing side effect: people marry partners whom they meet in college rather than people from their community, thus consolidating heiritable characteristics such as IQ. The long-term effect is to create a class division not on the basis of race or religion, but on the basis of being part of the liberal arts college-educated elite.

This was always President Obama's problem. When he made comments about people "clinging" to guns or religion; when he told people manufacturing jobs weren't coming back . . . it wasn't just a matter of stating facts or opinions. Rather, he was outlining and endorsing a class division that many people think is ultimately damaging for any country.

"There's a Supply and Demand Problem With Bigotry"
That's one of my favorite quotes from British journalist Douglas Murray. Good people want positive change in the world. But what do you do when things are going, well, not so bad?

The truth is that many, many problems in the world have gotten much better. A child born today in the slums of Mumbai has the same life expectancy as a millionaire 100 years ago. There are fewer people living in abject poverty in the world; fewer people crippled by illiteracy; fewer people dying of preventable diseases. In short, while there's always room for improvement, virtually every measure of human well-being shows people almost everywhere are doing better than people 50 years ago.

If we look just at the U.S., we have eliminated racism to the point of electing a black President. We have increased the status of women to the point where they earn a higher percentage of college and advanced degrees. We have social safety nets that, if imperfect, prevent people from starving.

So what do you do if you are passionate about social justice and equality but there are no huge, pressing problems with easy solutions? You expand the definitions of what constitutes a "problem." Suddenly, feminism isn't about making sure that women have equal opportunities and are treated equally in the workplace or as consumers -- it's about fighting some amorphous evil called "the patriarchy." Suddenly, racial justice isn't about making sure that people have equal opportunities or even figuring our ways to help people who have been hurt by historic injustice -- it's calling people out on "microaggressions."

The Democratic Party, starting in the mid-60s, built a significant part of its platform on addressing various social problems. But the better these problems get, the less of a platform they constitute. And the social problems that still plague us are not easily fixed -- we can't pass a Voting Rights Act and solve the educational and economic problems of inner cities. We can't pass a Consumer Protection Act to prevent gender discrimination in lending and solve the problem of opioid addiction.

The Left Won
Related to the supply-and-demand explanation is that many of the goals of the left have actually been achieved -- and they're not sure what to do.

Gay marriage is the prototypical example. Every politician was opposed -- until he/she wasn't -- and there were votes and counter-votes and all kinds of screaming. Then SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage and . . . everyone sat down. Except for the county clerk in Kentucky, there was virtually no blowback. Apparently nobody cared that much. People who objected on religious grounds still rejected gay marriage, but as the meme said, they weren't being forced to do it.

The same thing happened with gays in the military. After inching toward the issue with President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the military did a large study on attitudes of officers and enlisted personnel and discovered -- nobody cared. Everyone cared about military prowess, not what people did in their private lives.

Or if you want to look at issues closer to home, look at changes in the frum community: tolerance and acceptance of divorce and single parents; protecting children from abuse; helping special needs children and adults . . . you can argue that we aren't doing enough or doing it fast enough, but the attitudes today are not those of 30 years ago.

The left has been instrumental in bringing about many of the things that benefit all of us, and we should acknowledge that. At the same time, power corrupts. In the 1950s, tyranny in government and society came largely from the right. Today it comes largely from the left. Preventing the exchange of ideas is not a good look, historically speaking, but it's the look that the left has embraced. It would be great if the Democratic Party would draw a line in the sand against leftist tyranny, but I'm not holding my breath.

Fox,

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I really appreciate this.

fmt4

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 4:34 pm

So personally, I have issues with both the left and the right. I see myself as middle most of the time - at times I find myself agreeing with a more liberal point of view and at times a more conservative viewpoint. But lately I have been leaning more towards the left because of all the White House antics. I still find a lot of liberal politics to be ideologically dangerous, but at this point in time I find Trumpism to be the worser evil. So if I had to choose a side it would be the “resistance.”

fmt4

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 4:40 pm

Oh and btw - since people love to point to campus politics as one of the biggest problems with liberal politics and culture - I attend graduate school in one of the biggest and MOST liberal universities in the country (I live in NY so not hard to guess) and am part of the most liberal/leftist leaning department. And I have never, in over three years, experienced anything like what makes the news. I take many classes with undergrads of all kinds, everyone is mature and polite and hard working. Teachers barely refer to politics, there are no attempts at leftist brainwashing or whatever. People have differing opinions and everyone is listened to respectfully. I had class the day after Trump won the election, and no classes were canceled and no one was crying. We had regular scheduled classes and it wasn’t mentioned.
So though I know these kinds of things exist, I have not experienced any of that personally.

smileforamile

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 4:50 pm

Delete

Last edited by smileforamile on Thu, Jul 11 2019, 12:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

smileforamile

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 4:52 pm

Delete

Last edited by smileforamile on Thu, Jul 11 2019, 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

Maya

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 4:53 pm

smileforamile wrote:

Trumpism and conservatism are two different things. You see how many Republicans in Congress have done their best to disassociate from Trump.

How many, besides for John McCain?

princessleah

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:16 pm

This is nitpicky but it's bothering me. Nobody was wearing GENITALIA HATS on their heads at the march. They are shaped like CAT EARS. PUSSYCATS!!!

Here is a picture to be helpful: https://www.google.com/search?.....BBXM:

Calling them "pvssy hats" is a PLAY ON WORDS because of Trump and his comments.

Thank you for your time.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:17 pm

Squishy wrote:

Would someone please explain without ranting and giving examples of what conservatives also do why democrats accept and embrace the following on Dr Mom's list as a good strategy to win over the hearts and minds of Americans?

Please feel free to give your own examples of what is going on with the liberals. I can't understand the why of it. If someone can explain the why and the benefit that would be great.

How did we get to this point? If someone were teaching a couse on Contemporary American Politics, how would you explain to your class why it is good to come across as unhinged?

Be ready to get attacked. Apparently conservatives, especially those who support the president, aren’t permitted to speak their minds here...that’s about the left’s Idea of fairness.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:18 pm

Squishy wrote:

You obviously are not going to address my question. I specifically and respectfully asked not to give conservative examples. I don't want this to turn into a tit for that, your guy is crazier than mine, debate.

That’s what dems always do...they have no answers so they turn it on you...deflection is their game.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:21 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Of course it is. Because you're discussing wingnuts. You want to conflate left wingnuts with all liberals, while at the same time disassociating not only with right wingnuts, but with an increasingly large percentage of all right wingers.

The problem is, when all the leftist lunacy comes out, none of the “non-nuts” come out and condemn it so the assumption is that most agree with it. Where’s condemnation of Maxine Waters’ horrible remarks? Sara Huckabee being thrown out of a restaurant? And so much more....

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:23 pm

Maya wrote:

How many, besides for John McCain?

Jeff Flake. But, of course, he had already decided not to run for reelection.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:24 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Jeff Flake. But, of course, he had already decided not to run for reelection.

Yeah, he’s just planning to run for President....

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:37 pm

princessleah wrote:

This is nitpicky but it's bothering me. Nobody was wearing GENITALIA HATS on their heads at the march. They are shaped like CAT EARS. PUSSYCATS!!!

Here is a picture to be helpful: https://www.google.com/search?q=p****+hat&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja6uCH87jdAhWjg-AKHXfzCaQQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=887#imgrc=gKVNfoE2DLBBXM:

Calling them "pvssy hats" is a PLAY ON WORDS because of Trump and his comments.

Thank you for your time.

Everybody knows that. They just like to use the term to be demeaning.

33055

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:46 pm

princessleah wrote:

This is nitpicky but it's bothering me. Nobody was wearing GENITALIA HATS on their heads at the march. They are shaped like CAT EARS. PUSSYCATS!!!

Here is a picture to be helpful: https://www.google.com/search?q=p****+hat&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja6uCH87jdAhWjg-AKHXfzCaQQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=887#imgrc=gKVNfoE2DLBBXM:

Calling them "pvssy hats" is a PLAY ON WORDS because of Trump and his comments.

Thank you for your time.

I find the word pu$$y vulgar as pu$$y is a substitute word for female genitalia.

They are wearing genitalia hats on their heads. Call it what it is. It is disgusting and repulsive. I know my kids were never exposed to this before the liberals felt the need to wear them on their heads. Nice people don't even use the word in polite conversation.

I wouldn't refer to those hats as pu$$y hats when speaking about them IRL, yet eveyone knows exactly what is being referred to.

33055

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:48 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Everybody knows that. They just like to use the term to be demeaning.

The term pu$$y is demeaning to the user. The liberals are using that term to be demeaning.

JoyInTheMorning

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 5:58 pm

Squishy, you are being silly, and it's not the first time you've brought up the cat hats. You know very well that
1. Trump was the one who used the word "pu$$y" in that vulgar tape to mean "vag!na"
2. Women in the march wore the hats to take back the word.

Miri7

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:03 pm

Squishy wrote:

Well, I had to explain the objectionable term to my 12 year old son when he heard Pres Trump use the term. News of that usage certainly predated the emergence of the pussycat hats. And they really do look like cat hats - I saw loads of knit and crochet patterns and they all looked like the feline, not the human female anatomy.

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:06 pm

Squishy wrote:

The term pu$$y is demeaning to the user. The liberals are using that term to be demeaning.

Really? Its meant to be "demeaning"?

The President is on tape saying, "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.... Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything." So you agree that he intended it to be a statement demeaning to women, that he intended to be demeaning by his comments.

Because I don't recall your being nearly as upset by his use of the term, and bragging about grabbing women's crotches, as you are about pink hats.

The hats are nothing more than a taking back of the term. Yes, President Trump. You use an offensive term, and brag about assaulting women. Maybe when you see us, you think of us as nothing more than crotches. But we are strong. And we will oppose your z3xualizaiton of us.

33055

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:10 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

1. I have consistently said that Trump's was a private conversation. It wasn't millions of people talking about and wearing them.

2. It is disingenuous and silly to call them cat hats. They aren't a substitute for a cat.

3. The women didn't take back the word. They spread the vulgar word. As I said, my kids didn't know that vulgarity. They made it more acceptable in the vernacular; however, it is only used in a disgusting manner.

Honestly, do the hats stand for cats or female genitalia?

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:17 pm

Squishy wrote:

Private conversation or not. Do you agree that Trump made a demeaning remark about women, and bragged about assaulting them?

And the hats are clearly intended to be cat ears. "Pu55y," in addition to being a vile terms for women's genitalia, is also a diminutive of cat. The hats do not, and are not intended to look like a woman's vajayjay.

Quote:

"The original hat has these adorable cat ears, so ‘pu55yhat' also is a play on ‘pu55y cat.' ... The word ‘pu55y' is often used in a derogative way," Zweiman told the Free Press in a January 2017 interview. "Pu55y is a very charged word; I'm now very used to saying it, but it's interesting to hear people talk about the word, and how they feel about the word. These are conversations we all need to have. The discussions are around what is this word, what does it mean? A lot of it is constructive dialogue."