Politics

[aknowledgeableperson]

Interesting the term "reverse discrimination" is still being thrown around. Thought maybe a new term would be invented to make it go away. In a way I agree with the following however when it hits you personally it sure feels way different.
"But what people view as "reverse discrimination" is in fact an effort to level the playing field for everybody."

Twice in my career I was affected at least twice, maybe more, by this practice. Once I was told by a hiring official to not waste my time applying for a position that would have been a promotion for me. I worked quite often with this individual and we both respected each other. The position was set aside for a minority or woman. The funny thing is the person eventually hired was connected politically, eventually was a hiring disaster that was "transferred" to another department within a year. Needless to say another minority/woman was hired and she was quite successful. Another time there was another position open for a promotion, a position that also fit my background. All of the callbacks for a second interview were for women and most didn't have the background I had. A third time I should question since the person they did hire depended quite a bit on me to do his job and he was eventually demoted. By that time though I had already taken another position. Of course at times I "had" to hire a minority/woman but it worked out OK. The people I hired were the best fit which is how I tried to hire anyway.
Anyway, my career worked out for me and I eventually got as high as I wanted to be.

In theory it levels the playing field but in practice many times it just shuffles things up.

[FangKC]

AKP, it's nice you got to experience the same feeling that generations of women, racial minorities, and LGBT people have experienced. The feeling of having to work for a white, male boss who wasn't up to task, and for who you had to do all the work and not get credit or recognition, promoted fairly, or having to spend years earning less money--waiting your turn--because some entitled person had connections or privilege. Inept bosses who would get a pay raise when his underling, who actually ran the department, didn't. We are truly reaching equality in this country when white men get to experience this phenomenon as well.

My point is that there have been generations of incompetent white men in positions of authority with subordinates who were better qualified to do the job, but had to report to this person simply because he was white, male, had connections; belonged to the same social circle as the higher ups; or was simply part of the boys club.

In my career, I can think of dozens of white men who didn't measure up, or do their job well at all. Some came back from lunch drunk. Others spent the day talking on the phone to their friends or mistresses, while their secretary or admin. assistant actually did their job. I've been in meetings with these same men, who when I asked them questions they should know, would direct me to their assistant. These same individuals kept getting promoted.

I've been in rooms overhearing these same men diminish their female or minority staff members, who were actually doing their work for them. I've also been around the same types of men who see a women get promoted for her talent, and then simply resort to calling her a bitch; imply she slept her way into the position; and doing everything they could think of to make her job harder, or to attempt to see her fail.

I've seen it time and again. I'm a white male, and I don't defend it. Maybe it's a generational thing. However, I thought it was wrong when I saw it happen.

There are many unfair things about employment, and its not only women and racial minorities that bear the brunt of it. Even single people (including men) get treated unfairly because they aren't married. In my early career, I had supervisors tell me that some of my colleagues didn't get as big a raise because they were single and not supporting families. I was told this myself a couple of times. It had nothing to do with merit. Single staff members were also expected to work more hours than married men. Even married women were expected to work more hours than married men. These staff people were often salaried and not eligible for over-time.

I'm sorry it happened to you, but you need to understand that it's happened to minorities for decades. They thought it was unfair too.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I do know, and did know at that time, that it happen to minorities and women. What happened to me was just a fact of life. As I said my career did work out for me. What was happening to me was just the rules of the game, not complaining. Besides, one of my favorite sayings is "Who said life was fair?"

I think what happens to many who advance diversity or affirmative action or whatever you want to call it some people do suffer. Just not the ones given the advantage.

BTW, forgot to add that after I left one position, one that I was in for 9 years and I loved but it was a promotion, the position was reclassified to a higher level for a woman to fill. One with less experience than me.

[phuqueue]

What people believe and what's actually true aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't assume there isn't a "perception" that multiculturalism includes "reverse discrimination," clearly that perception is the whole foundation of the rejection of "political correctness." But what people view as "reverse discrimination" is in fact an effort to level the playing field for everybody. They aren't distinguishing between discrimination against them (what they perceive) and reducing discrimination against other people that favors them (what is actually sought). Socioeconomic status is not a zero sum game.

But my point with that particular line is that white people, men, and especially white men have little to fear from a Trump administration except for whatever generalized damage he does (eg predictions of an economic recession), while, again, it's people of color, LGBTQ people, and Muslims who will be -- and already are-- the ones actually spilling blood (and you say metaphorically, but for some it's literal). It's a lot easier to view this as some kind of opportunity when all the risks and costs of that accrue to other people.

I agree with almost everything said above, but I think the rejection of political correctness can include more than just those who feel reverse discrimination is a thing worthy of complaining about. Sure, there is reverse discrimination, but it is right up there with "flying in coach sucks" as far as first world problems go (in my view). I don't always agree with Bill Maher, but I do think he often makes very good points when he complains about liberals being overly sensitive and hypocritical in the use/disdain for specific terms and "micro-aggressions." If you are not able to hear a dissenting opinion without shutting the message out because of the terminology used or the person saying it, then you will never really understand why someone else feels a certain way or be able to engage in a persuasive discussion. For all the Trump hate for his ejaculations of "wrong" during the debate, I worry that folks are doing the same in response to his supporters. Trevor Noah made a good statement on Fresh Air recently, "don't make everything that Trump does a scandal, because you diminish the real scandals."

I mean the idea that the left is uniquely "overly sensitive" and can't hear a dissenting opinion has never rung especially true to me. Definitely there are people on the left for whom it is true, but I don't think these people represent the left any more than, say, the guy who'll have a meltdown if you wish him "Happy Holidays" represents the right. Actually I'm tempted to say that kind of stuff is much more rampant on the right, but that wouldn't be based on anything more than my own anecdotal experience, so I can't really make a strong argument there. I just see people on the right complaining about their own hurt feelings far more often than I see it from the left -- just yesterday I was talking to a guy who was whining that somebody evidently tweeted "Happy Thanksgiving to everyone except white people," which, who even cares. I'm dubious that he actually saw this tweeted at all, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, still, who cares. If anything I think it's funny. And like, what's the left's equivalent of outrage at Starbucks cups? What was the left's version of the toothless Hamilton boycott? I'm not saying nobody on the left has ever left the reservation, I mean I've seen apparently earnest tweets that white people eating tacos are engaging in cultural appropriation, but this narrative has taken hold that college campuses are all left wing reeducation camps with zero tolerance for any viewpoint skewing further rightward than Trotsky, and in my experience the people who are complaining loudest and most frequently about it are the ones who actually are just kinda being dicks to other people and don't like to be called out on it. And that's all I've ever considered political correctness to be, is not being a dick to other people based on their own immutable/quasi-mutable (eg religious affiliation) characteristics.

[flyingember]

Actually I'm tempted to say that kind of stuff is much more rampant on the right, but that wouldn't be based on anything more than my own anecdotal experience, so I can't really make a strong argument there

I would argue there's equal number of people in both groups, but the left claiming it's more about diversity and understanding means someone right wing is more likely to make a public scene of it, while the left is the type who historically sent letters to like minded individuals complaining about other people, and today take to social media and forums.

what's the left's equivalent of outrage at Starbucks cups? What was the left's version of the toothless Hamilton boycott?

The Chick-Fil-A blowup, the NCAA pulling it's championship from North Carolina

this narrative has taken hold that college campuses are all left wing reeducation camps with zero tolerance for any viewpoint skewing further rightward than Trotsky

Think about who is saying this. 60-80 year olds. Who went to college in early 1960s through the early 1970s. These people are more channeling their youth than anything necessarily true today.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

what's the left's equivalent of outrage at Starbucks cups? What was the left's version of the toothless Hamilton boycott?

The Chick-Fil-A blowup, the NCAA pulling it's championship from North Carolina

No snowflakes on coffee cups vs a corporation coming out against gay marriage (which, the right took way more seriously with their anti-boycott than left ever did).

People respectfully asking the Vice President-elect to do a good job while in office vs government supported discrimination.

NOT THE SAME THING.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I agree with most of what you said.

and in my experience the people who are complaining loudest and most frequently about it are the ones who actually are just kinda being dicks to other people and don't like to be called out on it. And that's all I've ever considered political correctness to be, is not being a dick to other people based on their own immutable/quasi-mutable (eg religious affiliation) characteristics.

There is definitely this sentiment nowadays, though, that nothing can be joked about. This is why every comedy show requires you turn your phone off for fear that someone might leak a joke out-of-context and every SJW online goes apeshit. Any joke about race is automatically racist. Any joke about the opposite sex is automatically sexist. Any joke about religion is automatically bigoted.

These things need to be joked about and I don't think comedians coming out and saying they need to be joked about are doing so just because they're dicks.

That's not to say that there's not a bunch of dicks that just want to say awful things and get away with it but I definitely do see the argument that the left has become way too sensitive. (the right is just as sensitive, though)

[phuqueue]

Actually I'm tempted to say that kind of stuff is much more rampant on the right, but that wouldn't be based on anything more than my own anecdotal experience, so I can't really make a strong argument there

I would argue there's equal number of people in both groups, but the left claiming it's more about diversity and understanding means someone right wing is more likely to make a public scene of it, while the left is the type who historically sent letters to like minded individuals complaining about other people, and today take to social media and forums.

I mean whether or not there are some on both sides, I don't think there's any basis at all for saying there's an "equal number" on both sides.

what's the left's equivalent of outrage at Starbucks cups? What was the left's version of the toothless Hamilton boycott?

The Chick-Fil-A blowup, the NCAA pulling it's championship from North Carolina

Agree with Chuck that these are not in any way comparable. Chick-fil-a donated millions of dollars to groups that actually fought gay marriage. North Carolina passed a law that actually discriminates against trans people. Starbucks cups are considered to be part of the "War on Christmas" that's imaginary to begin with, and the Hamilton cast just made a brief statement that was basically "hey we're also Americans so like please don't oppress us?" To call these equivalent is like CNN-level both sidesism. Frivolous anger from the right isn't the same thing as the left calling out and resisting actual discriminatory/oppressive acts.

this narrative has taken hold that college campuses are all left wing reeducation camps with zero tolerance for any viewpoint skewing further rightward than Trotsky

Think about who is saying this. 60-80 year olds. Who went to college in early 1960s through the early 1970s. These people are more channeling their youth than anything necessarily true today.

Of course -- and it's also said by younger people who never actually went to college. It seems more and more like the lynchpin of the modern Republican party is white guys making erroneous assumptions about things that exist beyond their own experience. But that doesn't change the fact that this in particular is a narrative that a lot of people have now taken to heart. I mean even bobby in his post that I was responding to seems to have internalized this to at least some extent (granted that he didn't specifically mention college campuses, but this is all part and parcel with the picture of overly sensitive liberals that he painted). Even some on the left are ready to concede that "maybe we do go too far sometimes." But I reject that. I think anybody, on any side, can go too far sometimes, but I don't believe this is a particular problem on the left or a problem that is specifically emblematic of the left. I mean yeah, tacos as cultural appropriation is ludicrous, but the left shouldn't allow phrases like "political correctness" and "social justice warrior" to carry pejorative connotations, especially where these are wielded as rhetorical weapons by actual dyed in the wool Nazis.

I agree with most of what you said.

and in my experience the people who are complaining loudest and most frequently about it are the ones who actually are just kinda being dicks to other people and don't like to be called out on it. And that's all I've ever considered political correctness to be, is not being a dick to other people based on their own immutable/quasi-mutable (eg religious affiliation) characteristics.

There is definitely this sentiment nowadays, though, that nothing can be joked about. This is why every comedy show requires you turn your phone off for fear that someone might leak a joke out-of-context and every SJW online goes apeshit. Any joke about race is automatically racist. Any joke about the opposite sex is automatically sexist. Any joke about religion is automatically bigoted.

These things need to be joked about and I don't think comedians coming out and saying they need to be joked about are doing so just because they're dicks.

That's not to say that there's not a bunch of dicks that just want to say awful things and get away with it but I definitely do see the argument that the left has become way too sensitive. (the right is just as sensitive, though)

I think this is overstating it. I think it's perfectly possible to make jokes on race or religion that are not racist or bigoted, and I think people are doing it and they aren't being called racists or bigots for it. I can think of, for instance, this guy (I can't really speak for the quality of his comedy, I know of him through friends, not because I'm personally a fan, but he deals with religious issues/particularly with Islam with some frequency judging by his posts that pop up on my fb when my friends like them). Minority comedians have also joked about the ways race affects them for decades. I was just at a comedy show a few weeks ago and everyone had their phones out and I think one of the comedians joked about how he'll have to be on his best behavior or something but then that was the extent of it. Nobody was told to put their phones away. None of the comedians seemed to be genuinely afraid they'd be called racists or sexists or whatever else for their jokes.

Broadly, there's an important distinction to make between joking about race/religion and joking about how our society shapes and interacts with race/religion. More narrowly, there's also a difference between jokes at the expense of vulnerable groups and jokes that challenge existing power structures (which means that yes, on some level, a hypothetical joke that makes fun of Christians or white people is more defensible than an identically-crafted joke that makes fun of Muslims or black people, although if your joke is just "white people, lol" then maybe rethink it?). You said above that race and religion are things that need to be joked about, but I'd disagree with that statement as literally construed. If your joke is about race or religion per se, like if black people or Islam or whatever is just the butt of your joke, it probably is bigoted, and this is probably the trap that a lot of comedians who are called racist fall into. But I don't think that's exactly what you meant. And for instance, scrolling through that twitter feed I linked above, he made a joke on Thursday about Muslims not being real people and counting as "maybe 3/5." But as you see if you click the link, the joke wasn't about Muslims themselves, it was about people who try to insult him on the basis that he has lots of Muslim fans (he was specifically responding to a tweet telling him "just because Muslims think you're funny doesn't make you a comedian"). Or another good example is Arrested Development -- in the original TV run of that show, there were a lot of jokes at Lucille's expense about her racism, but in the Netflix season there were some uncomfortable moments where minorities (I can specifically remember a few about Indian people, but I think there were some others in the Lucille-centric episode too) just were themselves the punchline.

I get that the line here can sometimes be fine, but there really is a line and if you stay on the right side of it you can make all the race/religion jokes you want and they will be entirely defensible. And, admittedly, you might need to defend them because yes, sometimes individuals can be overly sensitive, but again, my issue is with the perception that this is a thing that affects the left as a whole. I think it's as unfair to say the left in general can't handle the word "Islam" uttered during a comedy set as it is to say the right in general can't deal with Harry Potter because it promotes witchcraft and satanism, or something. And to the extent that people feel you can't joke about anything now, I think the right's own chafing at "political correctness" has contributed in large part to this perception. Complain about something enough, keep repeating it, and others will eventually just start to accept it (as with the college campus discussion above). They are definitely better at messaging than the left is.

And I mean I'm not the joke police here, you can joke about whatever you want, but if you tell a racist joke then you expose yourself to allegations of racism (the general "you," that is, I'm not accusing you, Chuck, of running around town telling racist jokes everywhere you go). That's the trade-off. If your joke is defensible, then defend it. Actually I am all in favor of telling jokes that just skirt the line and then, if necessary, defending them. That's how you defend free speech and make socially-useful statements through comedy. But if your joke's not defensible, then you deserve whatever blowback you get for telling it.

[phuqueue]

So is the let's wait and see what happens crowd pleased with what they're seeing so far?

[AllThingsKC]

I need more time before I make a judgement one way or the other. However, I am pleased with the stock market so far. One week in and the stock market doesn't have that "doom and gloom" feeling that some predicted. I don't judge the performance of the president solely on the stock market. Is that a sign of things to come? We'll have to wait and see.

[grovester]

You must have loved Obama.

[AllThingsKC]

When the stock market was up, yes.

[flyingember]

When the stock market was up, yes.

It still is. S&P 500 is triple what it was when he took office and about 50% higher than the peaks of both Bush and Clinton

[TheBigChuckbowski]

When the stock market was up, yes.

Oh, so like the final 7 years and 10 months of his presidency?

[AllThingsKC]

Oh, so like the final 7 years and 10 months of his presidency?

Yes. What investors hate is uncertainty. So the more sure they are of things, the more likely the stock market will go up. But the stability of the stock market isn't the only thing I use to judge how a president is doing.

As far as Donald Trump goes, he's signed some papers but nothing has actually happened yet. So it's too early for me to make a judgment on him.

[earthling]

As widely reported, prices of fruits/veggies (over 70% of tomatoes come from Mexico), certain cars and other goods will go way up with T's proposed Mexico import tax. It won't be Mexico paying for the wall, it will be US consumers. Even MinuteMen in Texas say T's version of a wall won't work. T getting us nuked is more of a concern. If a major world leader made flippant remarks about a nuclear arms race s/he would be considered dangerous to the world and its home country. Guess who has already done that.

[phuqueue]

Oh, so like the final 7 years and 10 months of his presidency?

Yes. What investors hate is uncertainty. So the more sure they are of things, the more likely the stock market will go up. But the stability of the stock market isn't the only thing I use to judge how a president is doing.

That's pretty simplistic but we'll skip that discussion and get to the important part, which is what "things" do you think they're "sure of"? I think they're pretty sure that financial regulations put in place in response to that meltdown we experienced just nine years ago will be rolled back. I'm sure every trader who thinks he's savvy enough to bail out right before another crisis lands is excited, but it's not especially clear anybody else should be. Given the success of Trump's anti-Goldman campaign rhetoric, it seems Wall Street hasn't actually earned back the public's trust (nor should it have), but now that he's in (and surrounding himself with Goldman veterans), that really doesn't matter. And when the trade wars begin, expect to see those stocks change course.

As far as Donald Trump goes, he's signed some papers but nothing has actually happened yet. So it's too early for me to make a judgment on him.

This is really a cowardly answer. You're either in favor of the content of those "papers" (otherwise known as Executive Orders, those things the right shrieked about every time Obama issued one) or you're not. And if the latter, you shouldn't have to wait to see how much is actually implemented to pass judgment.

[phuqueue]

By the way, to earthling's point, the Doomsday Clock is at two and a half minutes to midnight now, the closest it's been since the US and USSR conducted competing thermonuclear tests in 1953. It's the first time it's ever moved based on one man's statements.

But I'm still withholding judgment!

[AllThingsKC]

That's pretty simplistic but we'll skip that discussion and get to the important part, which is what "things" do you think they're "sure of"?

That we're not in World War III yet.

This is really a cowardly answer. You're either in favor of the content of those "papers" (otherwise known as Executive Orders, those things the right shrieked about every time Obama issued one) or you're not. And if the latter, you shouldn't have to wait to see how much is actually implemented to pass judgment.

Some I agree with, some I don't.

[mean]

It's become increasingly clear for many years that guy doesn't live in reality, and he's effectively set himself up so that if he loses in four years he can say it was rigged, the media is covering it up and lying about it, and he actually won. I thought during the campaign maybe his detachment from reality was more about relating to similarly delusional, conspiracy-minded voters, and maybe he'd simmer down after the inauguration, but it's getting worse.