There's nothing new in there, though. Nothing in principle that people haven't been saying for decades. I've lost count of the times I've thought "this has all gone too far, surely it has to end here? We need a different way." But it just gets worse. It's all very well saying people voted for change because the status quo means they're unhappy, but what if the change is no improvement - or worse still?
It's the cycle we're doomed to repeat. We never learn from history, we just package it up differently nowadays that's all. When you're the one with the extreme views you don't see yourself as the bad guy. The human race is not content with progress, it's a pendulum that constantly needs swinging to find its moral centre.
No, not a new idea.......but the point of it having been building to this conclusion for 10 or 20 years is a valid one. I would go a little further back than that. The U.S. political system is designed to maintain the status quo (as it is in the uk) so ordinary folk were ****ed whoever they went for.
And who says there's no such thing as reincarnation? Katie Hopkins please log in to view this image Irma Grese please log in to view this image
The PC world we live in has driven people to the right, if you tell someone often enough that you can't do this or can't say that, they will eventually rebel and there's always some nut like Trump waiting to take advantage of that. The left are standing in their corner with the news that it's all ok, we'll keep everything the same, well that's not good enough and people have shown that by voting for anything that goes against the norm.
I think most just decided the same wasn't good enough. while people are obsessing over transgenders pissing in the women's bathroom major corporations were dodging tax and getting ever richer and taking jobs away. In short nobody gave a crap about transgenders pissing where they want to really. it was a media story made up to distract while the other hand picked the pockets of the middle classes I mean seriously kim kardassian gets more news headlines than american multinationals trying to move their HQs out of us to avoid corporate tax.. apple etc etc.
I thought that the rest explained what I meant but obviously not. It's a typo not a spelling mistake.
Hilary Clinton has behaved reasonably well not to have challenged the results of the election, otherwise, there are going to be more uncertainties as at present.
Same thing. On a serious note, what I mean is: what is this PC world (not the magazine)? I think the phrase gets used without anyone thinking about what it means. Imo, it has become a term of derision largely because right wingers use it to describe measures put in place to protect people or improve conditions. It's no surprise that the right vilifies them, because it limits their freedom to exploit wherever they choose. Of course these measures can go too far and become petty at times, but without them things would be a lot worse. Also, no matter how bad you think the status quo is, it doesn't justify any sane person voting for something that will, in all probability, turn out to be worse. I think there's excessive analysis and rationalisation going on in the wake of this election in an attempt to understand something crazy, when the explanation is simple: they're just ****ing crazy.
that would be rather the plebs in rome no? was Victorian times when you were young not full of objective reporting of fact rather than agenda based propaganda.. ahem...
PC is purely a "I want to say this but i'm afraid to"? the reason its fear is not that you say something people think less of you for its fear cos rabid attack dogs on social media etc come beat down your door and go out of their way to ruin your life and make you look a racist etc etc
My point is that the people in power since Roman times, and presumably before, have known that you distract the public from the serious issues with entertainment, and keep them fed, so they don't rebel. Nowadays people sit and vegetate in front of the telly munching ****ty snacks, at least in Roman times they'd get the exercise of toddling off down to the arena.
So if we use that narrow definition of PC, how does that explain the election of Trump? Do people really want a sexist racist president so they can feel better about being sexist and racist themselves?
