[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Can you give me examples of the bolded part so that I can follow your argument?

There are a bunch of things I couldn't find the links for and I don't want to spend hours combing through Twitter, but here's a few bits of crazy.

Guardian shuts down reader comments on any story having to do with race, immigration, or Islam.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...-three-topics/
CNN writer argues that "only" 64% of egyptians favour the death penalty for leaving Islam, and "only" 13 of 34 Muslim-majority countries implement that same death penalty, as if these are positive numbers.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinio...slim-comments/
All white people are racists, and all men are sexists.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...white-america/
Oregon student union proposes banning "I have a dream" for being inadequately inclusive.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/26/wh...-just-isnt-inc
I really probably could have skipped this list and just posted a link to Salon. They've basically made an entire website out of this stuff.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/we_b...errorists_too/
Bernie Sanders is a sexist because he doesn't allow himself to be interrupted by Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/opinio...ler/index.html
Bernie himself then says white people don't know what it's like to be poor or live in ghettoes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCHfH0WABTY
Cologne woman gives interview about her sexual assault on New Year's Eve; is subsequently accused of being a racist.
http://www.swr.de/landesschau-rp/nac...teu/index.html
Guardian columnist says that people upset about Cologne assaults are privileged; should be more understanding of the perpetrators.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-new-years-eve
Lifelong gay rights activist attacked for being transphobic and "inciting violence" by signing a letter supporting free speech.
http://archive.is/hiHu5
Correcting peoples' spelling is racist.
https://i.imgur.com/XRxXP2r.png
So is talking about whether or not affirmative action is a good policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-pot-and-more/
Straight women choosing to wear non-traditionally-feminine clothing constitutes cultural appropriation of lesbians.
http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2...ed-my-wardrobe
Health officials advise women to avoid pregnancy owing to outbreak of Zika virus; accused of sexism for not providing same advice to men.
http://www.damemagazine.com/2016/02/...virus-warnings
Conservative speaker tries to give speech; doors blockaded by protesters, fire alarm pulled, has to be escorted out by police for own safety.
http://abc7.com/news/ben-shapiro-esc...sters/1219358/
Zuckerberg says only way to fight back against terrorists is to make them feel cared for and loved.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ISIS-terrorism
Incidentally, Facebook and Twitter are actively censoring conservative posts under the guise of preventing harassment or "hate speech".
Researchers create study of "feminist glaciology"; conclude glaciers are sexist.
https://archive.is/fwnJS

There's a cross-section of craziness. If I was just doing University examples I could easily do a hundred more.
There's a loud contingent on this side of the political spectrum that has essentially gone totally off the deep end. Which is in no small part why Ora TV started Unsafe Speech - there's actually an audience of left-leaning people who are pissed off about it and want their political ideology back.

The most important thing to understand is that this is not just a series of isolated examples. This is everyday stuff. There are a huge contingent of people, especially young people, for whom this is how they see the world, and it's become far more significant in recent years. Everyone who disagrees isn't just wrong, they're evil: racist, sexist bigots, and are harassers, and are creating a threatening environment and engaging in micro-aggressions and on and on. This isn't just true of the David Dukes of the world, it's true of anyone who doesn't tow the party line (which is how you get lifelong gay rights activists being called bigots; there are tons of similar examples). There's a religious quality to the whole thing, hence I always refer people to this blog post which I think sums it up quite nicely:

http://goddoesnt.blogspot.ca/2016/01...egressive.html

Originally Posted by Itse

STUFF.

Thanks for expanding; I'm not sure I understand everything you're saying but it generally makes much more sense now.

I assumed that the idea that he should/would be on an active campaign to tone-police liberals was hyperbole. Whether or not this was hyperbole, it kind of strongly hints that this is the standard you'd want to see: an active campaign. Which is kind of crazy. He's the POTUS, not the nanny of the nation.

I think this is the main difference: you don't think he should say anything; I think he should. As the leader of the democratic party, he's effectively the spokesman for the left in America. You think he's a centrist, because you're from Finland and by Finnish (and Canadian) standards, he is. In the USA, he's the standard bearer for politically left-wing people. Consequently, what he says does matter to those people. Similarly, as the President, he has a ton of influence that can be brought to bear to talk about what he thinks is or is not the right ideological viewpoint. He wields this influence frequently. It would be nice if he did this sort of thing (which I referenced earlier) more often.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lly-surprised/

As to why he bears the onus of doing this, there are, so far, two political options in the United States: Democrats and Republicans. If you're not voting Democrat, you're voting Republican. When the average blue-collar worker looks at some of the craziness above, turns on his TV and sees BLM protestors suggesting that he's privileged and probably latently racist, sees Jezebel columns talking about how his enjoyment of porn makes him a soldier for the patriarchy, and feels like he needs to keep his mouth shut about how he isn't a big fan of Caitlyn Jenner for fear of being called transphobic, and worries about whether or not the government thinks Islamist terrorism really has nothing to do with Islam, he knows what side of the political spectrum all of this is coming from. When the Democratic President either doesn't seem to notice a problem here, or speaks in a way that seems more or less okay with it all, he's far more inclined to think, "This Donald Trump guy is a blowhard, but the other guys don't seem to get it at all".

That's why I say it's a missed opportunity for the Democrats, and for Obama, by ceding these conversations to Trump.

You've built your own fantasy Obama out of things you're NOT seeing him do (enough). In other words, lack of existence of something used as proof of something else. Then you have your own expectations on what you'd WANT him to do. When it's your fantasy Obama vs. your expectations, what can anybody say to that?

Still don't get this. I get now that what you mean by "fantasy Obama" is Obama doing the things I'd like him to do. Why is that surprising? Here's a leader I like, but wish he was doing X and Y instead of Z. Isn't that most people's view on any President, or any political figure for that matter? I think you might be putting too much emphasis on my "blame" of Obama and the left for complicity in Trump's rise - what I'm really saying here is that there are some simple things they should be doing, and doing them would have to some degree blunted this populist movement we're seeing. They haven't done those things. They've missed that opportunity. They've punted.

That said, it's the second part I don't understand - "proof of something else". Proof of what? I'm making the argument set out above - that failing to rein in the crazy leads people to distrust or reject the democrats and embrace Trump as "telling it like it is". If the Dems would just speak candidly and honestly on all issues, Trump's bluster wouldn't resonate the way it does.

You have no idea why the White House decided to edit out the words "Islamist terrorist", and neither do I. You just decided it was because of White House political correctness gone haywire. If I was to guess, I think it's just as likely someone in Hollande's staff asked them to edit that out, because they care the most about it. It's also perfectly possible that the White House staff did edit it themselves. It's possible Obama didn't know, and would not have approved. It's possible he knows and approves. There's a possibility something happened we couldn't even guess. Mostly we don't know.

It's certainly a fair point that Obama isn't himself to blame for this, personally. However, he has personally adopted a policy of mum's the word when it comes to linking any terrorist act to Islam, and so it's not surprising that this sort of thing would occur. Among the many terms Maajid has coined that I like, the "Voldemort Effect" is near the top of the list:

http://bigthink.com/videos/maajid-na...ldemort-effect

This stuff isn't small and irrelevant, as you suggest. It's an aspect of a problem within the left described in the James Lindsay link posted above. The right is well out in front in the race to batcrap crazyville - I fondly hope they've already arrived and aren't going to get any crazier from here, but that seems optimistic. My other hope, though, is that the left doesn't follow suit in the other direction, and we're starting to see it happen. The significant number of people who operate in this way, and treat their ideology as a sort of grievance based religion, are the precursors of our own version of the Tea Party.

Also, if you want to talk about insanely kneejerk political rhetorics, you just turned Obama's public appeal to end violence towards women against him, because you don't like the statistic he used. Let me just say that it doesn't exactly make you seem like a guy that I'd be taking moral guidance from anytime soon.

Nope. This is an obvious false dilemma, particularly because I explicitly said "I'm with you on the policy". It's therefore completely silly to suggest that I somehow turned the policy "against him". Surely we can be a bit more nuanced than that. I want policy focused on addressing sexual assault. I don't want hyperbole and made-up stats to try to catastrophize the situation on campus, because that just makes people suspicious about the whole endeavour. "You've just lied about the extent to which the problem exists, why should I listen to you at all", that sort of thing. It's like writing a recruitment pamphlet for MRAs. I'm for the policy, I'm against the rhetorical style. And for what? He's advancing a worthwhile, laudable goal. It doesn't need the window dressing.

Let me also suggest to you this: considering the way Obama behaves in public, my guess is that in his opinion it would be improper for the POTUS to try and tone-police the nation. Freedom of speech and all.

I disagree for the reasons I expressed at the top of the post - talking to the country about the way the country talks to each other is well within his role as a leader on the left and as President. But more importantly, doing so would not be an exercise in limiting speech, particularly if the message is to listen to one another rather than assuming everyone who disagrees with you is morally inferior. Your comment here suggests that by emphasizing the importance of a free exchange of ideas, this would somehow trench on people's right to oppose the free exchange of ideas. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but it follows necessarily from the suggestion that any "tone policing" by a President has free speech implications.

The TL;DR here is, I think you're taking my criticism farther than it was intended to go - which may be to some extent my fault, if I wasn't clear initially. I don't think the rise of Trump is solely on Obama, or even mostly on Obama. But I do think the Left is in some measure complicit for failing to speak sensibly and honestly about certain issues, usually out of concern for the potential of offending anyone at all (thereby validating those people who will inevitably be offended by anything they can). Frustration with this atmosphere has led a significant number of people to see Trump, bluster and all, as a breath of fresh air instead of the bag of gas he is - the most common thing you'll hear from any Trump supporter is that he's the best because "he tells it like it is", or "he calls it as he sees it". Consequently, the President and the Democratic party generally have missed an opportunity to stand up and say "let's all get some perspective and cut the crazy" - presumably because they benefit politically from the notion that Conservative Principles = Evil rather than Conservative Principles = Not Good for the Country.