• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

On Political Correctness

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,623
Points
1,140
An interesting take on a wholly over-used term.....and on faux-outrage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/06/19/a-cage-is-a-cage-is-a-cage/?utm_term=.236f1068ae6e

Look who’s politically correct now
By Molly Roberts
June 19

When liberals refuse to call things what they are and sub in carefully calibrated euphemisms instead, far-right conservatives respond with one of their favorite phrases. This, they say, is political correctness run amok. But now it’s the far right that’s refusing to call the cages holding immigrant children separated from their families “cages” — they’re “chain-link partitions” instead. This hypocrisy reveals how much of a sham the crusade against political correctness among the far right has always been.

The far right loves to skewer the left for covering up inconvenient truths with consoling language: In the oft-quoted words of conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But up against the decidedly inconvenient truth that children in detention centers are crying out for their mamas and papis, the right has responded with … consoling language.

Television and talk show host Laura Ingraham may have come up with the pleasantest description possible of the sterile rooms surrounded by metal fences where terrified kids squirm under astronaut blankets on floor mats: “essentially summer camps.”

The Border Patrol’s bureaucracy is playing the same game. The agency contacted a “CBS This Morning reporter on Monday to tell him they were “very uncomfortable” with his use of the word “cages” to describe those ostensible summer camps. It wasn’t that the word was inaccurate, they said. It was just that, though these might technically be cages, the children weren’t being treated like animals.

This is a paradigmatic case of convoluted logic and language designed to disguise a grim reality: The very fact that the Border Patrol is keeping these children in cages shows the administration is treating them like animals. The complaint that talking about cages makes the administration “uncomfortable,” too, is straight out of the campus culture wars, yet when liberals lodge this complaint, conservatives label them snowflakes faster than you can say “microaggression.”

No one seems entirely able to agree on what exactly political correctness is, but those on the far right often gripe about the policing of vocabulary as an example of the left’s penchant for shutting down disagreement. How dare you refuse to name radical Islamist terror, they ask? How dare you say “holidays” instead of “Christmas”? And what is up with these genderless pronouns?

This is a strong argument only when the stifled speech is actually an attempt at truth-telling in the face of censorship. Yet when the Trump camp cries out against political correctness, it usually has nothing to do with truth-telling or censorship at all.

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump said during the campaign. And what was the politically correct autocracy stopping him from doing? Calling women “slobs,” “dogs” and “pigs.” But women are quite literally not dogs, or pigs. They’re women. Describing Megyn Kelly as a “bimbo” isn’t laying bare some suppressed reality — it’s nastiness for nastiness’s sake.

The same phenomenon appeared during the “shithole country” controversy. Commentators were in an uproar not because Trump was describing these locales for what they really were, as his far-right defenders insisted that liberals refused to do, but because he was implying that those who come from those countries are “shithole” people. And in any event, it’s possible to critique conditions in Haiti or El Salvador without invoking the human anus.

The pro-Trump right has weaponized “political correctness” to mean they get to say whatever they want, and those who disagree with them don’t. We’ve seen the first side of that equation plenty of times, and now, with the “cages” controversy, we’re treated to a crystal-clear example of the second.

So, in this instance, Ben Shapiro’s fans ought to reflect on how his mantra applies to them, too. Facts don’t care about feelings. They don’t care any more than the Trump administration and its euphemism-toting defenders seem to care about the children in the cages.
.
 
David Grahams write up in The Atlantic takes on this fucking absurdity as well.  He characterizes it as "violence to the English language."  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/ceci-nest-pas-une-cage/563072/ 
 
I saw a good quote today, to the effect of "nobody on the right side of history has ever had to quibble over the definition of 'cage'".

If you're gonna come up with and enforce a policy, have the balls to own your decision, call it what it is, and defend the necessity- if you can. History is not kind to those who quibble and lose on such matters.
 
Brihard said:
I saw a good quote today, to the effect of "nobody on the right side of history has ever had to quibble over the definition of 'cage'".

If you're gonna come up with and enforce a policy, have the balls to own your decision, call it what it is, and defend the necessity- if you can. History is not kind to those who quibble and lose on such matters.

Indeed, looking at you 9th circuit court on a pre-Trump ruling (according to Ben Shapiro). Let us not let an opportunity pass to blame Trump for something that was ok while Obama reigned.  But I bet you Trump will fix this issue. 
 
QV said:
Indeed, looking at you 9th circuit court on a pre-Trump ruling (according to Ben Shapiro). Let us not let an opportunity pass to blame Trump for something that was ok while Obama reigned.  But I bet you Trump will fix this issue.

Pretending the situation is the same as under the last administration is dishonest- deliberately so given how easy it is to ascertain fact on this.

The law has not changed, that much is true, but what is happening now was not happening under Obama's government. Had it been so, that would have been just as wrong. What has happened is that the current administration has chosen to remove discretion in enforcement of immigration laws.

It is an offense (a misdemeanour, so a relatively minor one) to cross illegally into the States. It can indeed be prosecuted criminally. Conventionally, though, immigration issues have been handled through civil deportation proceedings. Out of the country is out of the country. There was nothing that required the current administration to alter this conventional exercise of discretion and to mandate that all such issues shall be pursued criminally. Setting aside for a moment the ridiculous overburdening of the courts that will soon be happening because of this, there was no inherent necessity to impose this policy. It was a choice.

It is a new practice in the past few months - one demanded by the executive branch - to go about it this way. They have chosen the behaviour and so they have chosen the consequences. That consequence is that a law that has historically only been used in really serious cases where criminal prosecution is warranted is now being used across the board in all cases, a removal of the conventional discretion border officers have had. This has indeed resulted in children being forcibly separated from parents and interned in camps, locked in cages in some places. 'internment camp' and 'cage' are awkward things to see said, but they are utterly accurate. It is a deliberate governmental policy to pressure the democrats in the legislature on immigration reform - basically to pay for the wall that Trump swore up and down Mexico would pay for. Funny, that.

In any case- the law is not new but the way it is being used is. It is being used indiscriminately, when conventionally proceeding criminally has been an exception.

Over and above being on the wrong side of history in interning children forcibly separated from their parents, this is going to have a pretty brutal impact in terms of the burden on criminal courts and all the due process that entails. The psychological damage on many thousands of children is going to be very considerable. What's going to be hilarious - in the schadenfreude type of hilarity - will be when some of the asylum claims are successful (because illegal entry is irrelevant to asylum), and they then sue the everliving crap out of the government for what they were put through in the interim. On the very sad side, given the separation of thousands of children, inevitably there are already accounts beginning to surface of kids being subjected to some inexcusable abuses. I fear there will be more of that.
 
There has to be a credible fear of torture or similar harm to underpin a law suit in the US, the SCOTUS has been clear on that. Economic migrants do not qualify, and I believe ( stand to be corrected) that is also the case in Canada???
 
whiskey601 said:
There has to be a credible fear of torture or similar harm to underpin a law suit in the US, the SCOTUS has been clear on that. Economic migrants do not qualify, and I believe ( stand to be corrected) that is also the case in Canada???

Generally speaking to claim asylum there has to be a credible and specific fear for your safety, and yes it's similar in Canada. We're dealing with this in the ongoing border issues in Quebec. I'm not suggesting that most people will be granted asylum, or even many- but some will be fleeing specific enough and grievous enough danger that they will get asylum.

As for lawsuits, you can sure for pretty much anything. It has to have merits to go anywhere. The US government is putting itself in great jeopardy of children coming to unnecessary and avoidable harm due to government policies, and civil action will likely be a result of same. It won't change what has happened and it will take years, but it will keep this ugly spectre in the public eye from time to time for years to come.

This policy is basically a big lose in just about every way. There's nothing worthwhile to be achieved by this that couldn't be accomplished otherwise, and the political harm both domestically and in terms of international credibility is going to be considerable. I mean, it *should* be, because this is bloody awful, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the political math on this will not play out in the administration's favour. It will appeal strongly to a fairly narrow hard-right base, but most moderates are going to find this really gross. Not the smartest step to take leading into the midterms.
 
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.



As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.

As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.

Certainly they do have that option, and that is part of the tactic of fear being used here. 'Cross illegally, we'll take your kids from you by force and you won't know if you'll get them back'. If America has become comfortable with doing things that way, that's frightening to me. The brutal approach can be effective, but at what cost?

Hopefully the brisk and loud outrage at this and the domestic political impact it may have will help the administration to recognize the advisability of pulling back form this approach- if moral reasons don't suffice for that, hopefully pragmatic political calculus will. I don't expect Trump to care about what anyone else in the rest of the world thinks, but an impact on the midterms will carry weight.
 
Ok, well getting back on track to verbiage of political correctness, they are not chain link partitions with a summer camp nostalgia, they are pens and kennels with kids in them. Brutal> Yes.
 
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?
 
Jarnhamar said:
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.

As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.

I doubt it.....they have already travelled this far, paid fees and bribes, to stop and wait is not feasible nor safe....
 
QV said:
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

We're sure. The Obama issue back in 2014 dealt with UNACCOMPANIED minors who were escaping principally from Guatemala. Since they came without parents or guardians the administration was forced into providing facilities and processes for their safeguarding.

For a better understanding of the situation see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis

The current administration's actions are a form of weaponizing the legislation on the presumption that once families south of the border hear what is happening they will stop coming-- a form of pour decourages les autres. When you consider that the primary consideration in child welfare is always "what's in the best interest of the child", it's really not that hard to see that the current Trump administration policy is out of line for what right thinking people find acceptable. Even Republican lawmakers are aghast at it and quite frankly, IMHO, the true purpose behind way the administration is doing things is to make the Republicans in Congress uncomfortable in order that they will  give him money for the wall which they denied him earlier this year.

The situations are apples and oranges.

[cheers]
 
And in any event, it’s possible to critique conditions in Haiti or El Salvador without invoking the human anus.

This was the key take-away.  Political correctness is generally a form of greasy misdirection. Being blunt, direct, or "calling it like it is" is something appreciated when greasy language and misdirection are the norm.  One can, however, be blunt, direct, or "call it like it is" without being crass, obscene, or just a plain a**hole.
 
Beware the 'triggered' moral voices....

“moral voices can also become sanctimonious bullies.”

― Nicholas Kristof

 
QV said:
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

Let’s see something substantive and reasoned in reply to my first post to prove you’re not just cherry picking the points you’re least afraid of engaging with, and then we’ll chat. Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts as laid out by myself and others.
 
Brihard said:
Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts
You're new at these Politics threads, aren't you...  :pop:
 
Brihard said:
Let’s see something substantive and reasoned in reply to my first post to prove you’re not just cherry picking the points you’re least afraid of engaging with, and then we’ll chat. Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts as laid out by myself and others.

Yes please. Whataboutism at its best I think.
 
Brihard I'm not inclined nor wish to dedicate the time to go through your lengthy posts point by point.  Frankly I have other things to do.  Having said that, I do enjoy reading these forums for all of the different opinions and perspectives, including yours Brihard.  On occasion I drop my two cents in as well.  I try not to insult anyone or infer they are idiots simply because they haven't sufficiently responded to my post.  Truthfully, for me, your post was TLDR - so I skimmed it.  Maybe that means I don't have sufficient mental stamina to spar with you about this, or I just don't care that much.  My point is all of a sudden something that is in law and has been going on for years is all Trumps fault and this is a huge disaster.  Well, it's not really.  This is just dirty politics.  There is no honesty left anymore.   

I will just drop this link here as well for another perspective on this topic:   

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/06/19/really-2/


 
Back
Top