After Clinton/Obama, are we liberals finally, FINALLY going to stop being so PC-sensitive?

An interesting phenomenon I've noticed here is that Obama supporters are calling HRC supporters racist, and HRC supporters are calling Obama supporters sexist. I think most of us have experienced it by now, fairly or unfairly, and I think all of us are pretty tired of it by now...

From my experience, about 90% of this so-called prejudice on each side is pretty flimsy at best. The other 10% is genuinely vile and is quickly deleted, but the funny thing is that each side is usually equally outspoken that their candidate is being unfairly discriminated against by the champions of the other. Meanwhile, the people who genuinely dislike and distrust assertive blacks AND powerful females, the Freepers, are sitting back and laughing up their sleeves at all of us

And I think many people HERE, at least, are catching on to something I've thought for a long time--that Progressives would get taken a lot more seriously if they weren't so goddamn sensitive about every single internal incident of perceived Political Incorrectness...if we paid less attention to words in their barest, most nebulous form, and paid more attention to how these words were said and what the genuine intent of the person who said them was. In fact, our two heroes right now, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, always seem to handle these ugly incidents with a lot more grace and aplomb by either side's supporters--or their campaign handlers, for that matter.

Perhaps a general loosening-up is in order for all of us--at least in our attitude towards each other. Anybody here agree?

to the very real problems of racism and sexism. :(

A certain type of person will see bigtory and prejudice everywhere he goes.

Another type will FAIL to see any whatsoever.

from the left.

They will be able to trot out numerous instances of Clinton and Obama supporters accusing each other of sexism or racism. "That's all that liberals ever do." I can hear it now.

Also, from a personal perspective, in the past I tended to give instant credibility to charges of racism and sexism, given the nature of society, until proven that the charges were right or wrong. After all of the partisan primary-related similar accusations, I now tend to assume the charge is exaggerated, until proven that it is not.

I suppose that in time I will return to my earlier presumption that there is a basis for charges of sexism and racism, but I don't know how fast this will happen. Obviously, who is accusing whom of these things will make a difference, but the basic "benefit-of-the-doubt" that I previously gave to a perceived aggrieved party, will be more circumspect for a while.

I've already seen it happening.

"so goddamn sensitive about every single internal incident of perceived Political Incorrectness" we'd be republicans and posting someplace else. :hi:

I'm sure someone takes offense at that broad-brush treatment of DUers. :rofl:

Yeah, we seem to go berserk over the differences between two almost-identical candidates. Very little difference in things that matter: health care, education, war, economy.

A missed handshake, and Obama needs to be squashed, RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!1
A pic of Barack in a toga, and Clinton needs to be squashed, RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!1

(Any OP whose Subject contains the words "RIGHT FUCKING NOW" automatically gets kicked to the "mostest greatest" list, praising the wisdom of the author)

Anyway, I have no choice but to "lighten up". All my favorite candidates are toast (AG, JE, DK). In November, I'll vote Dem, whichever of our candidates is on the ballot, and no matter who is named for veep.


Things should get calmer around here soon. I have a feeling the nomination selection is all-but-complete, and there will be enough of a delegate majority that seating MI and FL couldn't change the outcome.

Both racism and sexism are important issues, but each of the groups championing those issues has a segment of people who, while they may have good intentions, are completely irrational.
This segment has always been there and always will.

To some extent, they are the burden the rest of us must bear.

The happy news is that there aren't nearly as many of them as it appears.

I am also not very PC - so screw the racism/sexism memes.

The stuff that has been going on here at DU is just a childish food fight. Kids bickering and name-calling in their sandbox. It has really been quite entertaining.

What bothers me is that people visit the freeper sites and start dragging their bullshit over here, like stepping in a cow pie when you are cleaning the barn, then dragging it inside on your shoes. That's what irks me - DU'ers doing freeper dirty work.

on edit : spell check - oops.

Still, the point stands. Some nights I feel like we should all fork over our dictionaries upon entering the forum so the language cops can excise each and every word we're now no longer allowed to use when referencing their chosen candidate. To think, words I've used for years to describe males are magically transformed into the harshest notes of hideous sexism when applied to Senator Clinton. In one incident, I learned an affectionate nickname given me by an ex is in reality a term no one outside the KKK would dare utter.

I just sort of stare at the screen some nights, scratching my head and blinking.

I admit I'm getting numb to it. The second I see a sexism/racism thread, I'm given to hiding it. Yes, there are some blatant and directly bigoted remarks that are tossed around the forum. I trust the alert button and moderators to deal with them appropriately.

But when some of the more innocuous words in the English language are transformed into the linguistic equivalent of a Salem Witch Trial and generally harmless remarks grow into rhetorical lynchings, I just can't seem to muster the outrage. It's gotten so Boy Who Cried Wolf on this forum. It cheapens real incidents of sexism and racism and innoculates people against the necessary action to defeat them.

At a time when we as a country and culture need a clear vision of bigotry so that we might defeat it, too many seem content to muddy the waters as much as possible for their own candidate's temporary political advantage. Seems unhelpful to me.

I think that we're accusing them of race baiting - as a political tactic, they tried to pit other etnicities against blacks. To the credit of the American People, this blew up in their faces. However, I don't think that any or many Obama supporters feel that the Clintons personally dislike non-caucasions.

Clinton supporters, on the other hand, often yammer on DU about how Obama supporters simply aren't ready for a woman as president.

To not have anything against a candidate personally but try to use his race against him is just as racist as a boss who hires women because he knows they do the job the same as a man and he can get away with paying her less is sexist.

I think there is an important distinction between being racist and race-baiting. I don't believe the Clintons have a racist bone in their bodies, but I do believe there were some subtle attempts at race-baiting going on in the run-up to South Carolina.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think those types of tactics are increasingly ineffective. We will see come the general.

Wish I had more time to comment but I'm off to the office.

My observation is factual because there are tapes and videos of this phenomenon.

It bothers me that Obama has claimed not to be specifically courting African Americans and does not want them voting for him because of his (paternal) racial heritage. Then he goes time and again before large, predominantly African American audiences, and this comparatively well-spoken, educated man slips into a dialect, cadence and word choice worthy of the deepest inner city street corner.

Now, if that is not dishonesty, and that is not pandering to something, please tell me what it is.

I'm a life-long New Englander, and I was married for several years to a Southerner. He didn't have the accent (he had partially grown up in the northeast), but his parents had heavy southern drawls. After spending time with them, I'd find that I had picked up some of their cadence in my own speech. It wasn't intentional, it just happened.

Have you ever moved to another part of the country where the accent and word usage differed from your point of origin? I have, and after a while you adopt the different word usage and even some of the new accent. Makes conversations a lot friendlier.

Since Obama did a lot of his early work on the "deepest inner city street corners" of Chicago, it's hardly surprising he slips into that cadence to help get his points across.

I think Clinton was criticized for doing the same thing when she spoke last year in Arkansas. It surprised me at the time -- I'd guess if folks had experienced this themselves with moving around the country they wouldn't be so taken aback.

act in a way that is guided by my own internal compass. Having been raised in a patriarchal culture I have a lot of cultural bias to overcome but I'll be damned if I let others get to me. But as you state the accusers undermine their own cause by blasting the racist/sexist charge at the slightest perceived slight. However, in my opinion, the self-righteous indignation is merely a reflection of their own internal, unresolved issues.

I'm sorry to say it, but political correctness will be with us forever, just like racism and sexism. It may get the volume turned down on it a little bit for a while, but it isn't going away anytime soon, I'm sorry to say.

It's politics - people say mean things.

If you constantly whine about it, you'll just look like the little snot that's always tattling on his or her classmates to get them in trouble.

Really, learn to fucking cope.

No. I doubt it.

But personally, I agree with your post 100%.

The amount of whining and bitching on this forum has been unbelievable in regards to political correctness.

Jesus Christ, will the sexism never stop?

The definition of the word aplomb is: "Assurance of manner or of action; self-possession; confidence; coolness."

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/1999/10/12.html

By associating this word with Hillary you are obviously trying to imply that she is cold, uncaring and unemotional--in other words, you think she is a bitch. I am so tired of listening to people that look at any successful women and seeing a person that is incapable of displaying emotion. Face it, Hillary is dammed if she does, damned if she doesn't. If she cries she gets labeled as an emotional wreck not fit for the office, if she doesn't cry she's a cold hearted bitch. Funny how a man running for office would never have to put up with this type of shit. I mean, really.

Furthermore, as the link above reveals, the word aplomb comes from Latin roots ad and plomb, which together literally mean "according to a lead weight". This is obviously a thinly veiled reference to Hillary's weight. Next thing you know you'll be like Rush Limbaugh and talking about how Hillary can't cross her legs.

You aren't fooling anyone pal.

And yes, this is a sarcastic post.