Ambien Side-Effects Advisory

[toucana]

Pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi issued this advisory earlier today:

[TheVat]

Nor is showbiz syndrome (a persistent delusion that you are greatly talented and all your jokes are funny). I suspect, in this case, that combining ethanol and sleep medication had the side effect of making her say what she is often thinking. This isn't the first toxic thing she's said about a Democrat but this time she added on some racism. She seems often unencumbered by the process called cognition. I am glad that truly talented actors like John Goodman and Sara Gilbert are now free to pursue other work.

[RJG]

If her Ambien-induced hateful comment was directed toward Trump (or someone in his administration), would she now be unemployed?

...does anyone besides me wonder?

[TheVat]

Not equivalent. Criticizing a politician doesn't make you a racist. Comparing an African-American to an ape, however, is a vile racial slur. In any case, Barr has been quite openly pro-Trump in the past couple years. Not surprising that she admired a man who is loved by white nationalists and neo-Nazis for his frequent racial slurs and religious bigotry and refusal to condemn their toxic actions and hate-filled philosophies. As one with friends in NYC I can tell you that folks there have not forgotten his many open acts of racism and ethnic slurs, dating back to the 70's.

Please look up the rhetorical device "false equivalence," which is now quite popular with partisan extremists who favor rhetoric over reasoned analysis.

[RJG]

Criticizing a politician doesn't make you a racist. Comparing an African-American to an ape, however, is a vile racial slur.

Would comparing a politician to a orange orangutan also be considered a "vile racial slur"?


Nonetheless, I think you miss my point, or are avoiding my question. My point is there appears to be hypocritical double standard here. So let me reword my question --

If Roseanne said an equally "vile" hateful comment to Trump (instead of to Valerie), would she still have been fired?

Biv, if you can put aside for the moment your strong dislike of Trump and his supporters, it appears that 'discrimination' is being employed (by ABC) in the name of 'discrimination' (racism).

[SciameriKen]

Criticizing a politician doesn't make you a racist. Comparing an African-American to an ape, however, is a vile racial slur.

Would comparing a politician to a orange orangutan also be considered a "vile racial slur"?


Nonetheless, I think you miss my point, or are avoiding my question. My point is there appears to be hypocritical double standard here. So let me reword my question --

If Roseanne said an equally "vile" hateful comment to Trump (instead of to Valerie), would she still have been fired?

Biv, if you can put aside for the moment your strong dislike of Trump and his supporters, it appears that 'discrimination' is being employed (by ABC) in the name of 'discrimination' (racism).

Yes. I think Kathy Griffen demonstrated that.

[TheVat]

Criticizing a politician doesn't make you a racist. Comparing an African-American to an ape, however, is a vile racial slur.

Would comparing a politician to a orange orangutan also be considered a "vile racial slur"?


Nonetheless, I think you miss my point, or are avoiding my question. My point is there appears to be hypocritical double standard here. So let me reword my question --

If Roseanne said an equally "vile" hateful comment to Trump (instead of to Valerie), would she still have been fired?

Biv, if you can put aside for the moment your strong dislike of Trump and his supporters, it appears that 'discrimination' is being employed (by ABC) in the name of 'discrimination' (racism).

You may have missed my point about false equivalence. An entitled privileged white man in America is not prone to suffering racial slurs. Every President has had their appearance made fun of, that seems to go with the job. Such mockery generally does not inflame racial tensions or give encouragement to a segment of this nation that has marched in favor of establishment of a white nation and engages in violence and hate crime. Barr, however, attacked a woman of good character and professional competence who happens to belong to a racial minority, and on the basis of comparing her to the progeny of an ape-man. Due to the grave consequences of such an attack in a society where racial tension and inequality is still a serious problem, a company (for reasons that may range from noble to cynical) has little choice but to respond with cutting her loose. To differentiate between degrees of slander is thus a rational policy, as it is elsewhere in public matters.

As for my "strong dislike" of Trump, please note that I am an Independent who evaluates the performance of a POTUS on verifiable bases of public record and adherence to the law and Constitutional principles. I don't know the man personally. Hope that helps.

[TheVat]

I think these comments from columnist and blogger Lindy West explain the non-equivalence better than I can:

Right-wing Twitter (including Barr’s own feed) is now thick with similar sentiments: Here is Joy Behar saying something cutting about Trump. Here is Jimmy Kimmel. Here is Michelle Wolf. Why didn’t the outrage mob come for them? One important difference is that it is possible, or at least up for debate, for Trump’s decorum, health care plan, tax bill or hair to deserve mockery. It is not possible, and well beyond the realm of debate, for all black people to deserve five centuries of racialized brutality and dehumanization.

Chattel slavery in America ended 153 years ago. I am only 36 years old, and when my father was born, there were black Americans alive who remembered being the property of white people. Slavery is not our distant past; it is yesterday. Descendants of slaves (again, only a few generations removed) have never been compensated for the hundreds of years of unpaid forced labor upon which white Americans built generational wealth and economic stability. The culturally and legislatively enforced poverty, subjugation and mass incarceration of black people continue to this day, while white supremacist violence saturates our news media, whether it’s identified as such or not.

The Parkland, Fla., high school gunman Nikolas Cruz “talked about killing Mexicans, keeping black people in chains and cutting their necks,” according to CNN. The gunman at Santa Fe High School in Texas, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, posted photos of himself in Nazi regalia. Alek Minassian, who drove his van into a crowded sidewalk in Toronto, killing 10, was a member of the “incel” (or “involuntarily celibate”) community, an online misogynist hate group with roots in white supremacist male entitlement.

Elliot Rodger, an incel hero who killed six people in a 2014 rampage, wrote repeatedly about his rage at the sight of white women socializing with black men. In Charlottesville, Va., last year, Heather Heyer was killed by the self-professed neo-Nazi James Alex Fields Jr., one of Trump’s “very fine people.” The stories of black people murdered by the police could fill a library.

Racism is America’s defining sickness, and comparing black and brown people to animals is one of its most pervasive pathogens — a rationalization that, even in 2018, kills people every day. Flint still doesn’t have clean water.

“Roseanne” was not canceled because it is mean or “HORRIBLE” to compare a black person to an ape (though it is both of those things). It was canceled because it carries the weight of both historic horrors and current atrocities — because comparing a black person to an ape nods to a historically rooted yet increasingly emboldened far-right hate movement whose chosen figurehead, Donald Trump, is the president of the United States. Because it is our collective responsibility to not let that movement win, to fight to be a better country, and right now cultural power is all we have.

[RJG]

If Roseanne said an equally "vile" hateful comment to Trump (instead of to Valerie), would she still have been fired?

Yes. I think Kathy Griffen demonstrated that.

Yes, of course, but what I meant by the word equally was just that, for example--

If Roseanne, instead of tweeting "Valerie's father was a monkey", she instead tweeted "Trump's father was an orange orangutan", would she still have been fired?

YES or NO?

An entitled privileged white man in America is not prone to suffering racial slurs.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but don't forget that a "white man" is still prone to suffering from "slurs". "Slurs" don't have to be "racist" to be "offensive" or to inflict pain/suffering.

So how do we determine which "slur" is more offensive? Should we ask the offended? If so, I suspect Trump was 'equally' (if not more!) offended by the "orange orangutan" slur, than Valerie was of the "monkey" slur. And if so, then shouldn't all those people on ABC's network that used the term "orange orangutan" also be fired?

Otherwise, if ABC does not take similar action against all similar offensive "slurs", then I suspect they will continue to be viewed, by most Americans, as a 'biased' (and hypocritical) network.

I think these comments from columnist and blogger Lindy West explain the non-equivalence better than I can:...

Biv, I disagree. This is flawed reasoning --- Lindy West is trying to justify today's wrongs with yesterday's (or another) wrongs. One wrong does not justify (or 'fix') another -- nor do two 'wrongs' ever make a 'right'.

ALL discrimination is wrong. (...we shouldn't just close our eyes to the ones we don't want to see, and wrongly accept those others).

[SciameriKen]

If Roseanne said an equally "vile" hateful comment to Trump (instead of to Valerie), would she still have been fired?

Yes. I think Kathy Griffen demonstrated that.

Yes, of course, but what I meant by the word equally was just that, for example--

If Roseanne, instead of tweeting "Valerie's father was a monkey", she instead tweeted "Trump's father was an orange orangutan", would she still have been fired?

I believe a majority would argue that it is on an equal level. Both were bad jokes right?

Regards to Valerie versus Trump - the two are not equivalent as referring to an African American as a monkey has inherent racial overtones.

[RJG]

If Roseanne, instead of tweeting "Valerie's father was a monkey", she instead tweeted "Trump's father was an orange orangutan", would she still have been fired?

I believe a majority would argue that it is on an equal level. Both were bad jokes right?

Yes. Agreed.

Regards to Valerie versus Trump - the two are not equivalent as referring to an African American as a monkey has inherent racial overtones.

So then do you believe "racial" discrimination/offenses are worse (more offensive) than other 'types' of discrimination/offenses? -- Shouldn't we be more upset with what's "more offensive" rather than the 'type' of offense?

I applaud ABC for their newly stated "values" of zero tolerance towards discrimination of all types, BUT if they wish to be true to their word, then they need to look at their own discriminatory actions (and non-actions).

Offending/discriminating against one group of people while claiming to fight against the discrimination of another, is pure hypocritically BS (...imo).

[SciameriKen]

Regards to Valerie versus Trump - the two are not equivalent as referring to an African American as a monkey has inherent racial overtones.

So then do you believe "racial" discrimination/offenses are worse (more offensive) than other 'types' of discrimination/offenses? -- Shouldn't we be more upset with what's "more offensive" rather than the 'type' of offense?

Calling an African American a monkey is not even in the same ballpark as calling Trump an orange orangutang -- its not even in the same sport!! You'll have to come up with a better example if you want to suggest hypocrisy.

[RJG]

Calling an African American a monkey is not even in the same ballpark as calling Trump an orange orangutang -- its not even in the same sport!!

Ken, can you tell me which one is "more offensive"? ...and please don't tell me which is more offensive to YOU, ...but instead tell me which one is more offensive to the one being offended.

I suspect Trump may have been more offended by the "orange orangutan" slur, than Valerie was of the "monkey" slur, and therefore it was "more offensive" to Trump.

But nonetheless, dismissing ANY form of bigotry over another because the "racial slur" trumps all other all slurs, is ridiculous. Again, it is the "offensiveness" that matters, not the 'label' (name/type) of the offense.

You'll have to come up with a better example if you want to suggest hypocrisy.

All forms of bigotry are wrong, ...wouldn't you agree?

ABC taking selective (bigoted?) action against one form of bigotry, but not the others, is where the hypocrisy exists. If ABC wants to champion "zero tolerance" bigotry/discrimination, then they can't pick and choose only the ones they like.

[SciameriKen]

Calling an African American a monkey is not even in the same ballpark as calling Trump an orange orangutang -- its not even in the same sport!!

Ken, can you tell me which one is "more offensive"? ...and please don't tell me which is more offensive to YOU, ...but instead tell me which one is more offensive to the one being offended.

I suspect Trump may have been more offended by the "orange orangutan" slur, than Valerie was of the "monkey" slur, and therefore it was "more offensive" to Trump.

But nonetheless, dismissing ANY form of bigotry over another because the "racial slur" trumps all other all slurs, is ridiculous. Again, it is the "offensiveness" that matters, not the 'label' (name/type) of the offense.

You'll have to come up with a better example if you want to suggest hypocrisy.

All forms of bigotry are wrong, ...wouldn't you agree?

ABC taking selective (bigoted?) action against one form of bigotry, but not the others, is where the hypocrisy exists. If ABC wants to champion "zero tolerance" bigotry/discrimination, then they can't pick and choose only the ones they like.

This goes beyond whether Trump was more offended than Valerie. It is whether the public is offended by the manner by which Rosanne jokes about another individual. Can the public continue to watch Rosanne knowing that she subconsciously (released by the ambien) harbors racist impulses? ABC is not willing to take that chance. What equivalent dilemma is there concerning Trump as an orangutang? The answer is none because they are nowhere near equivalent situations.

So again, if you have some better example of how ABC is hypocritical please present it - but Trump v Valerie is laughable.

**Added late: Just so you don't have to ask again - is the comment about trump ok? I don't think so - its just name calling which doesn't help anything -- but its funny, whereas Rosanne crossed a line in an attempt to be funny - and thats how things work in the court of public opinion.

[RJG]

Well Ken, neither of us appear to be budging from our positions. So I guess maybe we can agree to disagree. Take care and thanks for the good conversation my friend. --Roger

[TheVat]

What is odd is that two members both pointed out the false equivalence fallacy and you, RJG, cannot seem to concede the point.

Calling a president something unflattering is generally part of the free speech allowed in the interest of having citizens able to express grievances with their elected officials. No one is conjuring five centuries of a pernicious belief that German-Americans are like orangutans and therefore subject to slavery, abuse, and murder. Calling Valerie J. a progeny of an ape, however, enters a quite different realm of hate speech, in which a centuries-old comparison of Africans and subhuman apes presents a chilling subtext. These myths about blacks were the basis of atrocities, enslavement, and a thriving white supremacist movement that engages in violence and abusive attacks on US citizens.

So, no, history - both recent and old - is quite relevant in casting a shadow and causing justified fear among African Americans when they are subject to such verbal assault. That's a whole other universe of suffering that Trump, or well insulated white dudes like you, will never experience.

You are free to disagree and duck this reality, but your lack of compassion is very evident to anyone who can use their empathy to discern the difference between the examples of offense offered today.

For what it's worth, I would hope that Samantha Bee's network would also cancel her for her calling Ivanka a c--t. So I am not operating on any partisan basis here. Bee is a liberal Democrat AFAIK.
but she demeans herself and her ideology by using a gross sexual insult against the President's child.

[toucana]

The Samantha Bee ’ Full Frontal’ show is a rather interesting case because it isn’t broadcast live.

The show is pre-recorded with re-takes in front of a studio audience at the CBS TV theatre in NYC starting at around 6pm with a production wrap an hour and a half later. But the show isn’t broadcast to air until several hours later. There is plenty of turn-around time for the production editors who assemble the final cut to reassess the nature of the material they have just recorded, and to discard any segments that are too risque, or that stray too far over the line of common decency.

The point is that the finished product that appears on screen isn’t simply the spontaneous output of the lead anchor. It’s the combined output (and responsibility) of all the writers, production editors and executive producers of the production company TBS who are responsible for producing it.

Having spent some 30 years working as a technical stage manager in a theatre that handled both performance and near-live broadcast events such as BBC TV ‘Question Time’, I’m aware that when a serious complaint about content occurs, the first thing that the police or any other regulatory body will want to look at is the ‘book’ or prompt-copy for the show in question, and their number one question will always be “Was it in the script ?”

If the language or behaviour compained of was in the script, then the writer and the director are on the hook. If it was an unscripted ad-lib by the performer, then they are on the hook.

BBC TV Question Time was always recorded with about 40 minutes of downtime between the end of live recording, and uplinking the program to the national broadcast network - just enough time to edit out anything outrageous or unwanted.

The Samantha Bee Full Frontal production team had a lot longer than 40 minutes to reconsider the wisdom of that gag, so it’s a collective failure by the entire production company IMHO.

[RJG]

Biv, this seems to represent the difference of our views:

RJG says:
1. 'Racial' slurs are wrong.
2. 'Non-racial' slurs are equally wrong.
3. The offensiveness of a slur is determined by the 'offended'.
4. 'Free speech' protects 'all' slurs, but this does not make any of them okay.
5. ABC's policy of dis-allowing racial slurs, while allowing non-racial slurs is hypocritical.


Braininvat says:
1. 'Racial' slurs are wrong.
2. 'Non-racial' slurs are less wrong and/or are okay.
3. The offensiveness of the slur is determined by 'society'.
4. Free speech protects 'non-racial' slurs, thereby making them okay.
5. ABC's policy of dis-allowing racial slurs, while allowing non-racial slurs is not hypocritical.

... agreed?

[TheVat]

Nope.

Several of your numbered statements are not what I said or meant. I wasn't making a flat blanket statement on all slurs. I was saying that virulent "black people are apes" racism is more destructive and hate-breeding than the "the President looks dumb" slur that you specifically cited. It is self-evident why this would be the case. I carefully explained why those are not equivalent, and you are free to reread those posts.

I would modify your number 3 (attributed to me) statement to: Societal norms and standards exist, in these cases, to protect vulnerable individuals and discourage verbal aggression that may lead to outright violence.

Your number 4 (attributed to me) is incorrect and not what I said. Free speech protects such things as political dissent and artistic expression. It does not make racist or homophobic or other bigoted hate speech okay, and some forms of this may be legally actionable. It also does not make, say, death threats permissible, and those can also be prosecuted. Examples of other actionable offenses include slander, libel, and defamation of character. Each case has its own particular character and that is why we have courts to determine if there is wrongdoing. Got it?

ABC's policy is mercantile. They present it as having a moral basis. Whatever. They are a corporation and are free to make whatever business decisions they deem necessary for their protection, provided they are not in violation of the law in so doing. They are not hypocritical in this particular comparison because, as I've pointed out, and Ken has pointed out, now about six times in total, they are differentiating between virulent racist hate speech and other commentary that is essentially political criticism offered in the context of someone editorializing. TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS. NOT. EQUIVALENT.

Putting on Moderator Hat: in future, please quote specific comments from other posters, and respond to those arguments as presented. Please quote fully, to include all the principal points of the poster. Do not summarize someone else's position with your own version. Thank you. Hat removed.

Finally, and please try to understand this is coming from a common sense observation of America in the 21st century:

The offensiveness of a racial slur, of the type from Ms. Barr this week, is almost universally recognized, except for a tiny fraction of America that belongs to a white supremacist organization or nurtures notions of racial superiority long ago discredited and rejected. It was not "determined by the offended" solely. It was offensive and inflammatory to hundreds of million of Americans. It conjured a view of African-Americans as subhuman apes. Your failure to roundly condemn her words is baffling to me. Again, see previous posts to get a better handle on the positions of other posters. Good luck to you.

[wolfhnd]

This is the planet of the apes and that is most evidently demonstrated by feelings over evidence and reason. In this case the evidence that a racial slur was intended is very weak.

I remember when the left lampooned Bush junior as a monkey. It's a common if somewhat silly way to defame an individual. It is ludicrous to assume that when the caricature is applied to a person of color that it is automatically taken as evidence of racism.

Identity politics is a dangerous game. Not only does it create an equal an opposite reaction in terms of ethno nationalism but it leads to oppression Olympics that fragment and weaken opposition to actually bigotry. Treating someone according to the color of their skin without regard to their individual qualities is the definition of racism. Some affirmative action in opposition to racism may be necessary but it must be done with the minimum disruption to the principles of individual merit.

Bigotry comes in many forms and the irrational hatred of Trump is a fair example. The fact that black unemployment is at an all-time low and racial tension is lower than during the Obama administration should give people pause as too the effectiveness of leftist social engineering.

[TheVat]

Ms. Barr herself acknowledged it was a gross racial slur. As already covered here, comparing an African-American person to an ape is a racial insult of long standing in this country. Please read threads before commenting. An A-A friend, a writer, has told me of the many times he was compared to an ape or monkey. This phenomenon is well known in the US. Anyone in the entertainment industry would know perfectly well what they unleashed with that reference. This was not an identity politics issue, just flat out racist insult. Also, is "identity politics" now the latest rightwing pejorative for what used to be called civil rights? Or, more basically, people seeking equality and dignity? If someone is going to derail this thread with a rightwing agenda, I will shut it down immediately. Sorry, not for SPCF. If that wasn't anyone's intent, then we can move on, no harm no foul.

[RJG]

The offensiveness of a racial slur, of the type from Ms. Barr this week, is almost universally recognized, except for a tiny fraction of America that belongs to a white supremacist organization or nurtures notions of racial superiority long ago discredited and rejected. It was not "determined by the offended" solely. It was offensive and inflammatory to hundreds of million of Americans. It conjured a view of African-Americans as subhuman apes. Your failure to roundly condemn her words is baffling to me.

What are you talking about? I condemn ALL hate speech! (...even yours ;-) )

...which is totally contrary to ABC (and many others) that only condemn hate speech against liberals, while seemingly applauding/approving those against conservatives.

Your failure to roundly condemn her words is baffling to me

And your failure to roundly condemn hate speech against Trump seems very telling to me!

[TheVat]

Bigotry comes in many forms and the irrational hatred of Trump is a fair example. The fact that black unemployment is at an all-time low and racial tension is lower than during the Obama administration should give people pause as too the effectiveness of leftist social engineering.

All unemployment is lower ATM, for various reasons that start with the end of the 2008 recession.

As for racial tension being lower, please stop with the absurd statements that are contradicted by everything that's been going on for the year and a half. It's also off-topic. And frankly, embarrassing to see comments thrown out so grossly devoid of evidentiary support.

Start here....

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/11/ ... ent-trumps

Also see recent FBI data, coverage of Charlottesville, coverage of many many racial incidents around the country, coverage of rising membership in white nationalist groups, etc. Sorry to be blunt but maybe you got some learnin to do, brother. Also look up the number of recent school shooters who cited racial stereotypes as driving their anger. It's an eye opener.

[TheVat]

The offensiveness of a racial slur, of the type from Ms. Barr this week, is almost universally recognized, except for a tiny fraction of America that belongs to a white supremacist organization or nurtures notions of racial superiority long ago discredited and rejected. It was not "determined by the offended" solely. It was offensive and inflammatory to hundreds of million of Americans. It conjured a view of African-Americans as subhuman apes. Your failure to roundly condemn her words is baffling to me.

What are you talking about? I condemn ALL hate speech! (...even yours ;-) )

...which is totally contrary to ABC (and many others) that only condemn hate speech against liberals, while seemingly applauding/approving those against conservatives.

Your failure to roundly condemn her words is baffling to me

And your failure to roundly condemn hate speech against Trump seems very telling to me!

Here's what I see as trolling. You refuse to admit that you presented a false equivalence. Rather than deal with the substantial points made here regarding the difference between racist attack and political critique, you then ignore them and try to make this about Trump and his victim status. And, as I observed accurately, you did not actually show any sympathy for a black woman subjected to a verbal attack reminiscent of the language one hears from white supremacists and Klansmen. (their membership has been growing BTW....) In this woman's lifetime, she has seen black people murdered on the basis of their being deemed apelike. In her parent's generation, people were lynched on that basis. When you produce evidence that Trump's ancestors were hung from trees or beaten to a pulp for having orange hair, then I might think you had some basis for your assertions besides a political bias.

As for actual hate speech against Trump, I am sure it's as dumb as that sort of stuff usually is, and the Secret Service is no doubt monitoring that.

And now I'm done. Back to topic: Roseanne Barr and the consequences of hate speech.

[wolfhnd]

Bigotry comes in many forms and the irrational hatred of Trump is a fair example. The fact that black unemployment is at an all-time low and racial tension is lower than during the Obama administration should give people pause as too the effectiveness of leftist social engineering.

All unemployment is lower ATM, for various reasons that start with the end of the 2008 recession.

As for racial tension being lower, please stop with the absurd statements that are contradicted by everything that's been going on for the year and a half. It's also off-topic. And frankly, embarrassing to see comments thrown out so grossly devoid of evidentiary support.

Start here....

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/11/ ... ent-trumps

Also see recent FBI data, coverage of Charlottesville, coverage of many many racial incidents around the country, coverage of rising membership in white nationalist groups, etc. Sorry to be blunt but maybe you got some learnin to do, brother. Also look up the number of recent school shooters who cited racial stereotypes as driving their anger. It's an eye opener.

The miniscule number of actual serious racist and their actions in proportion to the population do not reflect the state of racial relations in the country. A better measure is the decline in false narratives such as those that sparked riots in Ferguson.

There are racial identitarians emboldened by Trump's election just as there were by Obama's election. That the later are more excusable because of historical oppression is not to the point. It remains that as Martin Luther King pointed out the dream is to reach the point where people are judged by their character not the color of their skin.

It is still not clear that Barr's comments were racist or simply her imagining that a woman she dislikes resembles a fictional character. In one of her latest tweets she says

"I'm not a racist, I never was & I never will be. One stupid joke in a lifetime of fighting 4 civil rights 4 all minorities, against networks, studios, at the expense of my nervous system/family/wealth will NEVER b taken from me."

The problem with political correctness is the word political. We would all be better off if we focused on treating individuals correctly and stopped weaponizing language for political purposes.

[TheVat]

The miniscule number of actual serious racist and their actions in proportion to the population do not reflect the state of racial relations in the country. A better measure is the decline in false narratives such as those that sparked riots in Ferguson.

You need to be specific here--what false narrative caused demonstrations in Ferguson? The false narrative that an unarmed teenager was shot to death by a police officer? Because I think that really happened. And in quite a few places. You can't fix a sickness until you notice that it exists. Try talking with black persons in your community about what traffic stops are like for them. Just to get your mind expansion program warmed up.

You're familiar with the famous "The Onion" headline, right? Racism Over, White People Declare.

The problem with political correctness is the word political. We would all be better off if we focused on treating individuals correctly and stopped weaponizing language for political purposes.

You mean like Republican TV stars calling Democrats who happen to be persons of color the progeny of apes and Muslim extremists? Or Presidents calling citizens of other nations animals and rapists? Couldn't agree more! As for political correctness I've railed against it here many times, as those who actually read my postings know. The heart of politics is contention and resolving conflicting ideas, so PC is an oxymoron.

[RJG]

.
"The problem with political correctness is the word political. We would all be better off if we focused on treating individuals correctly and stopped weaponizing language for political purposes." --- wolfhnd

-- well said.