Donald Trump, Political Correctness, and the Sexiest Woman

trump two

Do you feel that? The emotional anticipation in your bones as you are wondering how something positive could be said about silly ol’ Donald Trump. Impossible, right? Or could it be that a figure as polarizing as he causes your emotion to have a presuppositions on one side or the other?

This was the case when I commented on a friend’s Facebook post a compliment of how Donald Trump may “inadvertently” bring something positive to our country, in terms of political correctness. The feedback from others was quick disregard of anything I brought up. They jumped the gun to assume I was a die-hard Trump supporter of hatred, when that simply is not the case. Just because I say that one musical group has a particular virtue doesn’t mean that they are my favorite. Neither does it mean that there are not many other artists out there who are better.

Their reaction is understandable – so is much of our nation’s reaction to Trump and with any topic or person so polarizing. Just bring up abortion and watch people’s head explode.

But for a second, can we dive deeper? We have to go deeper than Donald Trump and the other candidates. Deeper than the election. Past our feels and past our self. Not that those are bad things, bu to take a second and reflect on whether there may be trend happening that we are a little too blind to see at the moment?

Three points:

1.What is the New Age of Political Correctness?

One may suggest that if I were to say some of what Donald Trump says in my own workplace, I’d be fired. That is correct. Although, that is not the issue; the issue is that I can say something far less controversial at work and still get fired in Today’s society. A celebrity almost can’t say anything on Instagram or Twitter without getting verbally attacked by millions of people. Most stand up comedians now avoid performing at college campuses because the college students boo them at the first offensive joke

Political correctness at its core has good merit, but we are increasingly abusing it to the point of chaos. Our society has turned the action of “political correcting” from a transitive verb into an intransitive verb. That is, it should be applied to a direct object, but in Today’s world it doesn’t need an object anymore. Political Correctness is now a means to an end – You start with the end that you want, and then you work it backwards to fit what you want inside. It is a person without a set principle. As the 1800’s government reformer Samuel Smiles said,  “A man without principles and will is like a ship without compass; it changes direction with every change of mind.”  

This new age political correctness is like a powerful, untamed snake. Who can comfortably live around snakes?

 

2. Why is the new age political correctness dangerous?

If being politically correct has changed to an intransitive verb AND we’re working a means to an end…then any goal that we’re working towards is no longer an actual goal we’re trying to attain because there is no standard since the standard is always changing. Progression is effective only unless it eventually finishes on some known objectivity which it is destined for. Otherwise we are left with an open-ended path that leads people into a bottomless pit of insane, never-ending bickering.

Lets put it this way: Historically, successful societies would base their standards toward what they saw as perfection. Whether it be God, gods, a king, a famous warrior, a hierarchical  governmental system, or some other large historical figure – a morally perfect being or system. They had an end goal to march toward and this kept their sanity intact. Today, the perfect being is bodiless because it has no standard behind it anymore. His every purpose in life is purposeless. Therefore, our guide that we’re marching toward is empty.

When a man secretly adores a picture in the Sexiest Woman Alive magazine, he subconsciously seeks for his wife to look similar to that standard. The man who dislikes his wife for not looking like ANY woman, would be considered foolish and even asexual. Our nation’s thinking is not asexual, but it could be leading to infinite irrationality.

Our desire for growth and improvement may be deceiving us in a way. Our desire for altruism slowly turns into a subconscious desire of egoism. In that, we are wanting everyone to satisfy something at one end and then contradicting ourselves in another end:

The extreme feminist claims that she should be treated just like every man, then she expects for a man to pay for her dinner on the first date.

The atheist and scientific materialist claims that the Bible is false because the Holy Trinity does not make sense, but then they claim to adore the unseeable astrophysics theory of event horizons and black holes.

One ethnic group claims that police are unfairly killing their innocent, then they turn their
head as people in their own ethic group kill one another.

Another ethnic group claims not to be racist, then actively moves far away to areas where they are the only ethnic group around.

As Chesterton famously said, “In an author’s book about politics, he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book about ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.”

Not having an end standard could lead to a society of never-ending contradictions. Madness. Insanity. People in an insane asylum swear that someone is out to get them, though they have no proof to back it up.

 

3. Is  Donald Trump inadvertently good for America’s future?

The ongoing reaction of Trump highlights our increased emotional sensitivity as a nation. Maybe if elected he could miraculously swing the pendulum of political correctness back toward the middle. Wishful thinking, huh? haha.

He is in NO way our nation’s savior. Neither is any other candidate. Trump has said some foolish, horrible things. There is never going to be a candidate, democrat nor republican, who can save us. Everyone can agree that Trump’s style and credentials, or lack there of,  could make him the riskiest presidential choice of all time. However, there are two sides to a risk.


At the same time, lets be honest with ourselves and admit the climate our nation is in right now and not ignore the depth of
SOME of what he’s saying. Lets not let our feelings cloud reasoning and create biases that could potentially hold back our thinking. Let’s investigate what he is saying and truly see if it is plausible or not.

contradictionWe already have uber low attention spans (especially millennials) and limited knowledge of what is going on around us. In today’s world, we are becoming more and more limited in objectivity.  Additionally, most of us are not aware of the geopolitical ramifications of what been going on in the world the past 20, 50, 100 years. Who can say they know about the root of the Syrian conflict going back to 1916? Who claims understanding of the complexities of ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic and economic realities all over the world and how they tie back into our life? We are very limited in scope and knowledge.

There is only one Savior we can cling to who actually comes through for us. He, my lovely friends, is Jesus. The perfect standard.

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Donald Trump, Political Correctness, and the Sexiest Woman

  1. This might be messy, but we’re gonna keep talking about it. I would like to say that I’m commenting because I want to know what you’re thinking, and I think you are better than the opinions I see that aren’t fully fleshed out. My comments don’t reflect my opinion of you as a person but my opinions of what you have written here.

    First Point

    First: you’re right, you can be fired for saying something at work. We all are entitled to freedom of speech, not freedom from its consequences. Knowing when to keep your mouth shut has always been important to survival. I think the bigger problem you’re alluding to is what happens when a state has “at will” employment. Where you can be fired without cause. So you might think you were fired because you said you liked Trump, but your employer doesn’t need a reason to fire you, so it may have been your political expressions in the workplace, but it’s more likely your lack of prudence by talking about contentions issues that have nothing to do with your job.

    Second: ‘action of “political correcting”’ I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Political correctness is a noun. I have never heard anyone say “political correcting.” A quick google search didn’t turn anything up either. So it appears as if you turned a noun into a verb to make a point. Can you clarify your point? Preferably without making up words, and I mean that honestly not to be a dick, because I don’t understand how you mean the non “political correctness” to be a verb.

    For the second part of that paragraph, political correctness definitely has a “compass.” That compass would be that all people, even, or especially, the marginalized, deserve to be treated with respect. Is it respectful or politically correct to refrain from using racial slurs when talking about minorities? Is it respectful or politically correct to not call a woman who wears revealing clothes a whore? Is it respectful or politically correct to not generalize a religion as terrorists based upon the actions of fringe groups? Is it respectful or politically correct to not use a gender or orientation as an insult? The answer, I believe, to those questions is yes. Because political correctness seeks to ensure that those who are in the minority have the same rights and privilege as those who are in the majority. (I’m jumping ahead here, but fighting for the marginalized was something that the guy you reference in the end of your post was very much for.)

    Third: The last paragraph/sentence of your first point doesn’t really serve to make your argument stronger. Where does the snake metaphor come from? And apart from whether or not you can tame a snake, the science I found says no, you didn’t tie the snake and political correctness together.

    Summary of the first point: Unconvincing. Due in part to made up words, unbased assumptions and a poor metaphor.

    Second Point

    Invalid premise, so the following argument is going to be hard. But the second part of the sentence, “the standard is always changing” Yes. You’re right again; the standard is always changing. Because the arc of history bends toward justice. If we as a society knew what perfection was we could be there couldn’t we? (Again jumping ahead, and maybe toward blasphemy, depending on what theory of atonement you subscribe to. Look what happened to the last guy on Earth who was/claimed to be perfect? He was executed.) Taking your statement about progress/progression; what is the purpose of a person’s life? Do they need a concrete goal to have a successful life? What happens if a person’s goal is to become CEO of a company, but they never make it? What if some catastrophic accident causing grave bodily injury happens to them and they are wheelchair bound for the rest of their life, a shadow of their former self? Was their life worthless because they didn’t achieve their goal? Is their future worthless because they can’t achieve their previous goal? The future is not certain and pretending like the only thing worth doing is the thing you know you will finish, or are dead set on finishing in a particular way is fruitless.

    Second paragraph: Source? I’ll agree that societies operate within a framework, but that is the literal definition of society “The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” Ordered community being framework. I’ll contend that people or societies don’t tend toward perfection, but success. People want to be successful. That usually means being financially secure or well off. I think that is constant throughout modern history. Some people view success as having power, that’s where emperors come from. Some people view success as helping other, that’s where nuns come from. Obviously those are two diametrically opposed extreme examples. I think they’re fitting but if you don’t, let me know.

    I’ll agree that having a goal, either individually or societally, albeit a vague one, is important. I disagree that “the perfect being is [now] bodiless.” I think the perfect being is now (in the US) filthy rich, usually christian, and white. Rich is the most important qualification, but the second two are also/usually important.

    After some struggling with this section I think I understand your intention. May I suggest tabbing in each of the points that follows the colon? I think you meant them to be illustrative, but I had a hard time figuring that out.

    Third and fourth paragraph: Not entirely sure I understand your meaning, but here goes. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as altruism? I don’t agree but I know that’s a popular opinion. If you can clarify your thoughts I would like to read them.

    For each of what I think are illustrative examples of your point:

    Feminists: Wrong. You appear to be playing on misconceived notions to argue your point. From my personal experience, I don’t know anyone who is an “extreme feminist” (the term itself makes me wonder what exactly you’re talking about) who would subscribe to “the ideals of the patriarchy” and let someone buy them dinner for a first date. The closest I can come to an “extreme feminist” is a friend of mine who refused to let her fiance buy her dinner on dates. They would switch off. But is that really feminism or realizing that both men and women are capable of holding gainful employment, and in college, both are likely poor, so sharing is caring?

    Scientists: This could be the subject of a whole post/reply itself. The Holy Trinity: It doesn’t make sense. It isn’t supposed to make sense. God is infinitely more [fill in the blank] than we as humans can or could ever perceive. That’s why it’s faith. If it could be proven there wouldn’t be other religions in the world would there? Black holes: Very clever choice of words because black holes are literally unseeable, good one. But the wind is also unseeable. Do you doubt its existence? You know the wind is there because you can see what it does. Black holes also can be observed by watching what they do to things around them. (Side note, there is a lot of math, very complicated math, that proves the existence of black holes, Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne had a bet about it.) And I find it very unlikely/troubling that you didn’t have a science class in your time at Clemson that covered this. Especially the bit about /Theory/. You should know that there is a difference between a theory and hypothesis.

    Ethnic groups: This too is a doozy. Gang members that kill other gang members are citizens of equal standing that kill other citizens. Even shooters that commit acts of violence against other citizens are still just citizens. Police have SWORN TO PROTECT AND SERVE. Their number one duty is to protect citizens. They have voluntarily taken on a role that puts them in a position of power and responsibility. Their job is to protect citizens because they volunteered for it. Police shooting minority men, women and children at higher rates than majority men, women and children is not the same an gang violence because one group has sworn to protect everyone else and has been given power to do so, misusing that power is wrong. Gang violence is also wrong. Whenever someone dies violently it’s wrong. But what is more wrong, someone getting mauled by a bear or shot by a burglar? Is it worse when a high school freshman bullies another freshman, or when the teacher joins in on it? The key issue is the abuse of power. And that isn’t even getting into the impunity with which majority white police officers can kill minority citizens.

    White flight? Yeah, that’s a thing and I think it’s a problem. I’m glad we can find some common ground.

    Chesterton: I don’t really know the background of that quote and I’m not sure how it applies.

    Last paragraph: Logical fallacy; slippery slope. Do better.

    Third Point

    “The ongoing reaction of Trump highlights our increased emotional sensitivity as a nation.” I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure it highlights the poor state of our political process, and on a larger scale the state of our country. It being Trump’s support. It also highlights the fact that much to many people’s surprise, there are still people who care about what goes on in the politics of this country even if they feel disenfranchised. It being the backlash against Trump.

    I really think I need to hear what you have against “political correctness.” I’m almost through with the article and I still don’t know why you seem to hate it. Looking back earlier in your post, it seems that you don’t like that political correctness seems “just a means to an end” but you haven’t proved that it is “just a means to an end.” Back to the part of the post I’m at though.

    “Trump has said some foolish, horrible things.” All I ask is, some? What good has he said? His campaign is based upon entitlement, fear, hatred and populist xenophobia. Another politician who’s campaign was based upon those things, and I am being completely serious, name started with “H” and ended with “-itler.” Playing off Donald Trump as someone who has “said some foolish, horrible things” is, frankly, dumb, and part of the problem. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like he accidentally said some horrible things. He hasn’t accidentally said anything during his campaign. Don’t believe me? Go read some of the articles I’ve posted, particularly the one written by his biographer.

    “[T]here are two sides to a risk.” Yes, it could be good, or it could be bad, but if what you’ve said here in your post is all the good that could come of a Trump Presidency, then its not worth it. It’s not even a risk at that point. It’s just a bad choice. In fact that is what global watchdogs have said. A Trump Presidency is on the top ten list of greatest threats in the world today, listed higher than the UK leaving the Eurozone, and at the same lever of Jihadi terrorism. Let that sink in. Trump being President poses the same global threat as radical Islamic terrorism. If you don’t believe me google it, really just google it anyway, the articles are worth the read. That being said, Trump isn’t a risk that might play out well, it’s a bad choice.

    And now a good part. Please. Pretty please find me something good Trump has said. I’m sure there is something out there, it has just been buried under all the misogyny, hatred and xenophobia.

    “Lets not let our feelings cloud reasoning and create biases that could potentially hold back our thinking.” Good. More people need to do that.

    “Let’s investigate what he is saying and truly see if it is plausible or not.” I have, it’s not. Even more though, I’ve listened to people all over the political spectrum say that it’s not. I don’t have any confirmation bias.

    Second to last paragraph. Speak for yourself, I know a lot of millennials who have long enough attention spans to care about geopolitical history and ones smart enough to tell you about it.

    Lastly, and I don’t mean to be rude, but the “Jesus sticker” at the end seems out of place, and weak.

    Those are my thoughts, I would like to hear what you have in response to them. And now that it’s been two hours since I sat down tot write a quick reply, it’s past my bedtime.

    1. Your first point: That’s semantics. “Correcting” is a verb. Political correcting is an action of conformance to a given cause. Did we loose “correcting” as a verb this week? As your point, I agreed with you in the blog that PC is good in thought. It has good merit. But the problem is that the firing has a cause. And a valid cause to the person doing the firing because the correcting is a means to an end and the end is changing according to truly fir their desire. That desire may seem altruistic (as you mentioned, in an ideal world) but it is turning toward egoism.

      Your second point: Do they need a concrete goal to have a successful life?
      Everyone is striving for certain things. You’d be hard-pressed to find a philosopher who thinks that structure and a standard is the wrong way to go. It is in those limits that we have the creativity to do so much more. Every choice you make is limiting. You choose to buy a Honda Accord and that refrains you from buying other things. Standards don’t limit you and change as your circumstances change. Once you have a goal of structure in place, then you’re able to have guidance of where you want to go. Once you have that handle, you can use so much of the world of what you want to do. No one’s life is worthless. Where’d you get that from?

      Everything else: Some of it we’ll have to talk about later in person. Because yes it’s too messy.

      Other than that, dude you’re playing semantics with analogies. You’re absolutizing a generalization. For instance, I said the event horizons and black holes. Event horizons are supposedly in black holes. Not only unseeable for unprovable, as scientists would say. Same logic with Feminists, Ethnic groups, etc. And if you don’t agree with the attention span of millennials then you’re disagreeing with tons and tons of current sociological research and social experiments.

      Slippery slope, logical fallacy? Come on dude. That’s the purpose of the warning of future occurrences. Talk about logical fallacy…most of your reasoning is the Fallacy of Composition, Argumentum ad hominem, and Begging the Question. So lets stop playing the semantics game, absolutizing, and statistical game because that’s just going to go in a circle and make you and I dizzy, haha.

      But much more to come when I’m in Raleigh. We’ll get muuuuuuuuuuuch more across.

  2. Cop out reply.

    You’re basing your entire post on “political correcting.” If you want to talk about political correctness talk about it. Don’t twist it into something that suits your needs. Hmm that’s funny, you talked about twisting things in your post. Lets start with “correct.” Definition: “to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition.” So to bring something to a standard. Adding -ing to a verb makes it the present participle, or an action is currently happening. Correcting is something that can be currently happening. I can be correcting papers, and will continue correcting them until the task in finished. But you aren’t talking about just “correcting” you’re talking about “political correcting” which in of itself doesn’t have a definition. So lets look at “politically correct” to start. Definition: “agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people” Political correctness is defined as “a term which, in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society.” according to wikipedia, and the wiki on the subject is quite informative. You should read it and it may give you more fuel for fire. So building upon those definitions “political correcting,” colloquially defined, would be amending language, or policies or measures, to ensure they are not offending or disadvantaging toward a group of people. Using that definition, which I believe is fair, let me know if it isn’t, the verb “correcting” in the phrase “political correcting” has an object: language, policies or measures. Again your premise is invalid. I think there is more you want to say but it needs to be fleshed out.

    For the rest of the first paragraph of your reply. It is rather haphazard. I think you have some good thoughts, but they’re presented in an incoherent way. I don’t expect an answer soon, and I didn’t think you would reply today, so please feel free to take some time at your leisure to write a response. Writing something carefully allows ideas to be fleshed out better and allows thoughts to be clearly expressed without the emotion of having someone arguing at your face.

    For philosophers, there are whole schools of thought that disagree with you. Namely absurdism, nihilism and somewhat existentialism. Again I’m not entirely clear on what you were trying to say, but the “worthless life” point I clearly described it in my original post, and laid out the foundation for that comment. If you don’t think it was clear read it again and then tell me what you were confused about.

    Everything else: write a letter or blog post or whatever, at your leisure and send it/post/whatever you want and then I’ll read it and reply so we both can have a coherent exchange.

    Next, I’m not playing semantics with analogies, I’m tearing them apart. Your analogies are poor. Use better ones. If you illustrate your point with analogies they need to be correct and illustrative. Yours weren’t.
    “I said the event horizons and black holes. Event horizons are supposedly in black holes. Not only unseeable for unprovable, as scientists would say.” Those two sentences don’t make sense to me. And personally I don’t think someone who isn’t an astrophysicist has much business debating the science behind black holes, because neither you nor I have the knowledge to do it well. So I default to people who have literally spent their entire lives studying black holes.
    The following sentence about “same logic” also doesn’t make sense to me, can you clarify it? I think you’re trying to say I’m absolutizing a generalization, but I’m not clear what generalization.
    And sure, I’ll agree that millennials have short attention spans, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care about things that are important to them. I will happily disagree with things that I think are wrong. Give me some sources and we cal talk about the attention span of millennials. That sounds like it should be a separate post though.

    Lastly. “Slippery slope, logical fallacy? Come on dude.” You’re dodging my point. You have no evidence that your premise leads to your conclusion. That is a logical fallacy. You can’t try to argue a logical progression of ideas if you’re argument is based upon a fallacy. You can’t deflect blame by saying “Come on dude.” You sound just like those who cry “political correctness” to silence people whose opinions they don’t like.

    To address each of those fallacies you mention.

    Fallacy of Composition: “The fallacy of inferring that a property of parts or members of a whole is also a property of the whole.”
    I don’t think I did that, can you show me where? If you’re talking about millennials again, couldn’t I say the same thing about you, that you think all millennials have short attention spans because some do?

    Ad Hominem argument (nb. saying it in Latin doesn’t make it sound fancier) “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. ” Who am I attacking? I’m not attacking you. I’m not attacking some irrelevant aspect of Trump. I’m attacking his actions and words. Which are very relevant.

    Begging the Question: “Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.” Where am I begging the question? It seems to me that you threw together a list of logical fallacies because I accused you of using one. Give me examples.

    “So lets stop playing the semantics game, absolutizing, and statistical game because that’s just going to go in a circle and make you and I dizzy, haha.” Semantics: if you can’t find good words to argue your point don’t argue. Find words that get your point across or use lots of words to clarify what you’re trying to say. If you make up a word define it, clarify what you mean by it, don’t just throw it out there and leave it for people to wonder about. Absolutizing, still not sure about that one. Statistical game, again where is that? And “just going in circles.” That’s how debates work. You can’t throw something out and ask for responses and then when someone does respond say “you don’t want to go in circles.” If you’re gonna get dizzy sit down, grab some dramamine and buckle in.

    I sincerely want to read your thoughts, and would rather read them and think about them before you come to town because that way we both know what we’re talking about.

    1. Your still playing semantics and the grammar game. That’s why we’re going to have to talk in person. Anyone can break down any argument as long as you have enough wits. Just because you one can find fault in an analogy doesn’t mean the premise isn’t still true. There is no analogy that can’t be crumbled up. Hence, the reason it’s an analogy. Otherwise, it would be equated to actually being the real thing you’re addressing. You’re picking particular things a part and that’s fine. That’s what people do in debates….on both sides. So you doing so doesn’t prove you’re correct. It’s a futile game of dexterity. I can do the same thing with your points, though I’m not as emotionally attached to it as you are. For instance, why would I say millennials don’t care about anything?? That would be foolish. I’m not an astrophysicist so I can’t speak on it, even though I’ve studied it? Dude, I can’t converse over writings with someone with that type of thought process. We HAVE to do it in person or you’re just going to keep picking things apart; which, again it can be done. That way I can immediately cut you off when you make statements like that. And vice versa.

      1. This is the third post where I ask you to give me something substantive to critique my argument. You have yet to come up with anything. You’re just side stepping my questions. You’ve got to do better. If you only want to talk face to face fine, but I would rather you take the time to address what I’m saying so I can read it and think about it. You say you can pick my points apart, then do it, don’t just say you can and move on.

        And you’ve studied black holes? You have a fair grasp of the mathematics behind them? And the theory? If so I’m impressed, but the fact that you’re arguing against a pretty widely held scientific fact makes me think you haven’t.

        If you want to cut me off when I pick apart your argument fine. But if your argument can’t stand up to being analyzed then its a shit argument.

        I’m trying to “cut you off” by pointing out the things you’re saying that don’t make sense. And you just say that I’m talking semantics and paying too close attention. If what you say can’t stand up to scrutiny then it’s not good or valid or true or whatever word you want to go with.

      2. Haha, you’re grasping at straws and wanting to pick a fight, Austin. You’re begging me to follow suite. I’m not. And that probably makes you even more emotionally upset. I’m sorry. There isn’t a blog or writing of persuasion/opinion out there that I couldn’t pick apart. Heck, I can read my own post and pick it apart in many ways! Give me the Bible, I’ll pick it apart even though I believe it. Want me to be for or against abortion?? If you’re smart enough you can debate either side.

        See you, my friend, want a fight. You yearn for it. There is nothing I can type to convince you, though. Therefore, face to face is our option brother! It’ll distill certain things. Then we can speak 30000 words easily, instead of typing bits here and there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s