"This Is Not Who We Are!" Isn't It Though

In contemporary times every time the current administration proposes some draconian policy or commits some amoral reprehensible action (such as at the southern border separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in cages under horrific conditions) people scream, "This isn't America! This isn't who we are!"


But, it is.


*Gasp* How can I say such a thing I'm quite certain someone is saying right now. Well, I can say it easily because it is the truth.


One of the most destructive and annoying things we do in this country is promote this flawed ideal of American exceptionalism.


Now, before some folks get all in their feelings allow me to be clear. America is my country and I love it dearly. For all its flaws there is no other place I would rather be.


However, that doesn't mean it is perfect or infallible or hasn't been home to some of the world's most treacherous human rights violations. Because, it has. That is just an empirical irrefutable fact.


I love this country, but let's keep it real about what it has been in the past and is currently.


If you can't understand that, I am really saddened and depressed by your lack of nuance and insufferable stupidity. Moving on...


Since before this country's inception it has committed atrocities and human rights violations.


Slavery is always called America's original sin. But, I would argue our original sin is how this land became colonized.


Some people like to parse history and be flippant by saying Europeans were just savvier than the Natives they "acquired" the land from. The reality is Europeans (who later became Americans) pretended to befriend the Natives. Then, they not "acquired" but stole the land. They did it by literally intentionally infecting Native populations with diseases. They murdered people including children. They raped the women.


This vile activity continued well after the country's origins. The American government isolated Native Americans on reservations denying them access to adequate education and healthcare. And, they separated children from parents.


The same atrocities happened with slavery. It was not enough to enslave an entire group of people. Blacks were denied education. They were basically treated like cattle. And, families were constantly separated.


Look at how this country treated the Irish, Italians and the Chinese in the mid to late 1800s.


Let's remember World War II. Initially America had no interest in getting involved in the war even though we knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews. Hell, in the late 1930s there was an "America First" (sound familiar) campaign running strong  that ostensibly was an apologist and empathizer for Hitler and fascism.


Then, after we entered the war the American government placed all Japanese Americans in internment camps.


Oh, we certainly can't forget the 1950s and early 1960s with the despicable way Civil Rights protesters were treated. Bull Connor having his deputies sic dogs on and spray high powered water hose toward protesters with little rebuke from the United States government.


I mean we can discuss Jim Crow, which lasted 100 years after slavery ended. Some disingenuous folks love to pretend all was well after Lincoln freed the slaves but nothing could be further from the truth.


I would be remised if I didn't mention the rampant misogyny and sexism that held women down in this country decade after decade. They were viewed as second class citizens whose only useful purposes were to cook, clean, give birth and dish up pussy whenever demanded. Women couldn't possess credit cards until 1974. 1974!!! Let that shit sink in!


Rape wasn't necessarily seen as criminal unless it was a black man raping a white woman. By the way it was routine for black men to be convicted of rapes that white men committed or never happened at all.


So, my entire point with this trip down memory lane is that what we're seeing now with child separation, trans women being murdered with little retribution, the LGBTQ community writ large being discriminated against and marginalized, racism seemingly being normalized and rape culture being coddled if not fully embraced is nothing new.


Many say, "We're better than this!" We should be! But, are we?


Look, the truth is a pesky bish sometimes. It certainly can be uncomfortable.


Fact is this country has a long infamous history of mistreating certain groups of people. We love to "otherize" folks.


A certain pattern has existed since this country's origins and before. People of color and marginalized communities are constantly dehumanized. Native Americans were labeled savages. Slaves were labeled animals. Irish and Italians were labeled "anomalys". Today African-Americans are labeled thugs and animals. Hispanics are called rapists, murderers, vermin and infestations. The LGBTQ community is smeared with being called perversions, child molesters and abominations.


All of these labels and stigmas are employed to dehumanize. The purpose of these attacks is to marginalized and demean these people as much as possible.


Why? If you make someone seem less than human it is easier to belittle, abuse and mistreat them. It is easier for others to accept the mistreatment because they don't seem legitimate. What I find ironic about all of this is many of the same cretins who have no problem dehumanizing other human beings and treating them like animals lose their fucking minds anytime an actual animal is mistreated.


Kind of let's you know how folks of this ilk view people of color and LGBTQ.


The next time someone laments or cries, "This isn't who we are" ask them,"Then, who are we?"


I will close with this. A segment of this country (at times larger than others and pertains to people of all races, genders and sexual orientations) has always been just fine with the cruelty and depravity. People must understand for many folks the current administration's reprehensible actions aren't the bug but the feature and they love it! They must also accept there is another swath (and there always has been) of people who are somewhat uncomfortable with the dehumanizing actions but largely stay silent because they don't wanna rock the boat and on some level feel the same way about the marginalized. They're just not as virulent.


It was that way regarding the treatment Native Americans, during slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, treatment of LGBTQ people and on and on and on.


So, of course, this not whom we should be. However, history and empirical evidence says, "It is though."

Preview Of The First Democratic Primary Debate (Night Two)

In my previous blog (https://robbase2110-ezel.blogspot.com/2019/06/preview-of-first-democratic-primary.html) I provided a brief analysis of the 10 candidates participating in night one of the first Democratic primary debate (June 26 and 27) in Miami.


Now, I will go over the 10 candidates who will appear in the second night. This second group has substantially more name recognition and relevant candidates than the first group.


As in the previous blog I will list in ascending order based upon personal preference, policy and realistic chances of winning. (Note: These three qualities will not have equal weight necessarily as you'll see.)


So, let's get this ish started shall we.


10. Gov. John Lickenhooper- The former governor of Colorado entered the race a few months ago. And, I am still wondering why. He is not a household name. I mean I am a political junkie and I tangentially know who he is. But, what I do know is not impressive. His politics are guised as liberal but he's really more a centrist. He has ties to the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. A notable moment for Hickenlooper was a Morning Joe appearance awhile back when he had difficulty saying whether he's a capitalist or not. (He is.) The moment was funny, awkward and a bit cringy. It does seem apparent he knows he has no shot at the nomination. So, in recent weeks he has moved into the lane of protecting Joe Biden while attacking Bernie Sanders and more broadly progressive ideals.


9. Micheal Bennett- Like Hickenlooper Sen. Bennett is from Colorado. Look, I don't have much to say about this dude. He is a prototypical milquetoast neoliberal. He is even less known than Hickenlooper. The only reason he's ahead of Hickenlooper is because back during the government shutdown he hilariously clapbacked and dragged Ted Cruz. And, he did it on the Senate floor. I give him credit for calling out Cruz for the hypocrite and shitty human being he is instead of doing mealy mouth political speak. But, this dude has a razor thin better chance than me of winning the nomination.


8. Eric Swalwell- The Congressman from California is young (37 years old) but does have significant name recognition. He has made numerous appearances on MSNBC and Fox News. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, and is known for being one of the biggest proponents of the Mueller investigation. He is a vociferous critic of the President. His politics are mostly liberal. However, his substantial corporatist ties are troubling. Even more troubling he is a member of the "reach across the aisle" delusional sect who mind-bogglingly believe Republicans are really interested in bipartisanship. They just need the right person to extend the olive branch. Totally naive...or effin stupid.


7. Joe Biden-Whaaaaat? Biden is seventh? Yeah, and the only reason he is not lower is because he is the former vice president and is currently leading the polls. I set these rankings last week before Biden decided to repeatedly deepthroat himself with his own foot. I am trying to keep these analyses brief, but Joe Biden is a hot mess! Look, I don't think Biden is a racist or even a bigot. I almost wanna say it's ridiculous to suggest he is. However, Biden is out of touch. He's one of the white liberals MLK warned us all about and my mama personally warned me about. He believes racism is wrong but understands why some white folks don't like the coloreds. That is problematic. And, if it needs to be explained why this country really is in trouble. Biden working with virulent racists in Congress isn't as bothersome as the fact he seems quite tone deaf to racial issues. (Much like he is to boundary issues with women.) Also, let's keep it real here. His politics are corporatist and always has been. His delusion that once Trump is gone the Republicans' "fever will break" is, if I am being kind, naive and idiotic. But, this inane fantastical horseshit is emblematic of his broader issues. He is out of touch with the Democratic base and reality. Seriously, Biden deserves an entire lengthy blog. For now let's just break this shit down to the barebones. He cannot be the nominee, but if he is, of course I will vote for him over Mango Unchained!


6. Pete Buttigieg- Ah, Mayor Pete. I like Mayor Pete, but he has some serious flaws. He is way too centrist. The issues with the South Bend police force and the firing of its first African-American police chief is to say the least troubling. Also worrisome is while his policies unquestionably brought a thriving economy to South Bend it seemed to have left behind its more marginalized citizens. But, some people seem to be more enthralled with the fact he speaks multiple languages and is quite cultured. I get it. He is an impressive guy. Speaking multiple languages is intriguing. Especially when the current president can't even speak one. However, his politics aren't progressive despite his claims they are.


5. Kirsten Gillibrand- The Senator from New York is pretty milquetoast. Sure, she is better than the other senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, but that is not exactly a high bar. She has some good policy on immigration. She supports Medicare For All. But, her ties to Wall Street are disqualifying. And, frankly I find her boring. A substandard policy set and being boring is not a good combo. That said, she is head and shoulders better than the five candidates below her.


4. Kamala Harris-Let me state up front. I have a huge crush on the Senator from California. Just keeping it 100. And, I struggled with whether I should place her fourth or third. My crush aside I have some concerns regarding Sen. Harris. Her record as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general is beyond bothersome. Her truancy policy of jailing parents is draconian. She had a shitty record regarding nonviolent drug offenders. Her attempts to keep inmates incarcerated longer because the state was using inmates as free labor is abhorrent. It's often said during her time in the Senate she has the most progressive record of any Democratic senator. That is objectively true. She has legislated considerably more progressive than she ran the San Francisco District Attorney's office or the California Attorney General's office. I believe she is the most intriguing candidate in the field. And, there is certainly a particular petty joy I would receive from her being able to unseat Trump. But, her ties to Wall Street along with her prosecutorial record gives me significant pause.


3. Andrew Yang- Yang is a candidate who deserves his own full length blog. He is a venture capitalist who has caused some waves in the primary field. His signature policy is UBI (universal basic income). Basically, Yang says every American will receive $1000 a month with the ability to opt out. UBI is something that has been kicked around for decades. In principal I like the idea because it would give those struggling the most extra income that theoretically could get them back on track and supplement low wage earners. The problem with Yang's UBI is that he would get rid of the social safety nets. That is unacceptable and untenable. Another troubling issue with Yang is he does seem to be an apologist for the billionaires who have a hand in the current wealth gap that exists in this country. Yang has also been a source of controversy because he's seems to be liked by some alt-righters. Now, I don't believe Yang is a racist or a Neo-Nazi sympathizer. However, whether intentional or unintentional, he does appear to dog whistle to the alt-right with tweets about declining white birth rates and lamenting the ignoring of the "working class" in favor of others. All that being said Yang does have progressive policies about criminal justice reform and immigration. He is ostensibly on the correct side of the culture war issues. He is for Medicare For All. He is a noninterventionist. As I eluded to earlier I struggled with whether Yang or Harris should be in the third slot. I settled on Yang because while I do have some reservations he is more aligned with my politics than Kamala. And, he has a strong loyal base and the debate could provide him a real possibility to expand his support.


2. Marianne Williamson- I absolutely love Marianne Williamson! She doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, but I love her nonetheless. If she can't win, why is she number two you are likely asking. Because she is clearly the second most progressive candidate in the entire field (not just this group of 10). If you don't know who Marianne is read up on her. She is a motivational speaker/help guru who has written multiple best selling books. Normally, I would have no interest in someone like her. But, I watched numerous full length interviews she had and I came away deeply impressed. She is a bit too cheerful and ra-ra. However, her political instincts are great and her policies are awesome. She is for Medicare For All, criminal justice reform, marijuana legalization and the Green New Deal. She understands what must be done about income inequality and racial inequality. She is someone who truly believes in inclusion. She is noninterventionist. She has a sincerity in helping the poor and the marginalized communities. To some she'll come across as a "flower child", but she is actually quite an intelligent articulate thoughtful substantive candidate. Again, she has zero chance of winning the nomination but in a setup like this debate she could easily win the night.


1. Bernie Sanders-Do I really have to explain why Bernard is number one? He is the clear frontrunner if you are a dye in the wool Progressive. He is now and has been for decades the leader on progressive issues. He's labeled a socialist but is a Democratic Socialist. There is a difference and if you care about nuance and fact you know it. I love Warren and Williamson but Bernie is the clear choice.


The debates are this Wednesday and Thursday nights (June 26 and 27) on MSNBC, NBC and Telemundo. I implore you to watch despite some of it likely being a shitshow.

Preview Of The First Democratic Primary Debate (Part: One)

I must be honest. I have dreaded and avoided writing about the Democratic primary field. Fewer men belong to the Taylor Swift ex-boyfriends club than people who are running for president. (Barely.)


But, I feel an obligation to discuss this shitshow for the three people out there who give a crap what I have to say.


The first Democratic Primary debate is June 26th and 27th. It will be televised by NBC and it's family of networks which means not one but two nights of Chuck Todd. Please hold your excitement. I understand though. I, too, am waiting with baited breath for consecutive nights of fun and insight with Chuckie.


Anyway, the debate has to be spread across two nights because 23 people are in the race. However, only 20 can participate in the debates. The DNC used polling and small dollar donation criteria to determine who was eligible.


So, in part one of this blog post I am going to give a quick analysis of the 10 people who will participate in night one. The other 10 will be covered next week while the three who didn't make it I have no interest in discussing. Just being honest. Frankly, about 12 or 13 of the 20 who did make it aren't worth discussing.


Supposedly the makeup of the groups were determined by a random draw. A representative from each campaign went to NBC headquarters where the names were drawn.


The order which they will appear on stage has not been determined.


For this analysis I will do a countdown from the candidate I view as the 10th candidate to the one I see as the top candidate. My criteria is simple. I'm basing this on whom I see as the best candidate and their viability to the Democratic base.


10. John Delaney-I don't know a whole lot about Delaney. I do know he is a centrist, which immediately gets the side-eye from me. His centrism was on full display when was booed at a California Democratic event when he shit all over Medicare For All. He babbled some nonsense about it was not practical, but of course he supports universal healthcare. That is centrist doubletalk for, "Medicare For All would mean my donors...errrr...the pharmaceutical and medical insurance companies would no longer be able to turn ungodly profits on the backs of sick people." Next.


9. Amy Klobuchar-I gotta say I like the senator from Minnesota. When I saw her on television she impressed me as the sweet nerdy woman who is lowkey super attractive. (I know that sounds a bit piggish.) But, then I actually researched and listened to her. Her treatment of her staff which in and of itself isn't disqualifying but certainly says something about her temperament and character. What is even more disturbing is her centrism and corporatism. She seems way too interested in "getting back to normal" instead of actually addressing the real problems that face this country. She is also very dismissive of Progressives and our ideas which the majority of Americans support. She is stuck on this asinine belief that bipartisanship is the answer and Republicans will be receptive to that. Anyone that tone-deaf and naive can't be the nominee.


8. Julian Castro-I don't have much to say about the former Obama official. He has some strong policies toward criminal justice reform which is super important. He supports Medicare For All. But, his approach to most issues is Republican light. Even his healthcare stance despite supporting Medicare For All is sketchy in areas.


7. Tim Ryan-The representative from Ohio is another (of way too many) centrist Democrats in the field. He does have some strong populist ideas on trade. However, he is quite conservative on some issues and neoliberal on others. He is an admirer of third way politics which is largely responsible for the mess we're in now. He jumped on the Medicare For All train but quickly began hedging. Overall the guy is to the right of clowns like Steny Hoyer! Yeah, no thanks!


6. Beto O'Rourke- I have probably pissed off some folks having him this low. But, you know what I say about being pissed off...Anyway, I actually like Beto. It's hard not to. However, his politics are trash and we all know it. Dude has no policy ideas. He is all platitudes and disingenuous energy. Beto is trying to be white chocolate Obama. The problem is he doesn't have anywhere near Obama's charisma. And, whether you liked what he was saying or not, Obama's speeches were littered with substance. O'Rourke can't even provide solid reasons for wanting to be president other than he "was born for this". Muthaf****a, really?! If B really wants to help his party and his country he will stop this farce and run again for the senate seat in Texas. He almost beat Ted Cruz in 2018 and John Cornyn is more vulnerable than Cruz was. The Democrats could greatly use that seat. But, no, Beto is on some inane misguided ego trip.


5. Cory Booker-Lawd. Lawd. Lawd. Sen. Cory Booker. Some people think Booker is pretentious and phony. I don't. That cringy corniness is real, sadly. Now, what is fake is Cory's persona he is a Progressive. Sen. Booker is the quintessential neoliberal corporatist Democrat. Simply look at his ties to the banking industry and charter schools. His support of charter schools which actually are often detrimental to low income urban students (regardless of the bullshit charter proponents spout) is borderline disgusting. He says he cares about low income and inner-city people but his policies make that extremely difficult to reconcile. He didn't exactly help inner-city people in Newark, New Jersey when he was the mayor. Now, in fairness to Booker his stance and actions on criminal justice reform should be greatly commended and I would argue is extensively more substantive than anyone else in the Democratic field. That said though he is not a good candidate. And, his "can't we all get along" mantra is ridiculous. He has been in the Senate long enough to know Republicans have zero interest in "getting along".


4. Bill de Blasio-Look, honestly de Blasio is fourth because he isn't as awful as the six people beneath him. He fancies himself a Progressive but often has corporatist twinges. He has done some awesome things as the New York City mayor. He certainly has cleaned up (some) the relationship between the police and communities of color. He was on the right side of the Amazon headquarters deal. Although he did attempt to somewhat be on both sides. I like the dude, but his progressiveness is a bit too fluid for me.


3. Jay Inslee-The governor of Washington doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. He knows that. He is in the race to push one issue, climate change. That is enough for me. He understands the existential treat we are facing. Outside of climate change Inslee's politics are bordering between liberal and progressive. In some ways that might make his #3 spot too high, but again, his harping on the climate change issue is more than enough to deserve being this spot.


2. Tulsi Gabbard-Some of y'all...most of y'all about to be triggered in some way. Whatevs. I stated my issues regarding Tulsi in a video a few months ago. She seems to possess a cursory affinity for authoritative leaders. She has a very disturbing and strange appeal to some alt-righters and the Jimmy Dore left. Her position on Syria's president, Bashir Al-Assad, is a bit unsettling. However, with all of that said she is unquestionably the second best candidate in this field of 10 and in the overall top five. Tulsi has an impressive progressive record in Congress. Despite her past views she has proven to be an advocate for the LGBTQ community. She is mostly on the correct side of surveillance and torture issues. Some of her past recent comments about torture are troubling. (See her 2014 interview with an Indian morning show tv host.) Gabbard's approach to cultural and immigration issues is largely correct. She stood in solidarity with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khana in opposition to "PayGo" which was a House resolution that significantly hampers the ability of genuine progressive bills to be brought to the House floor let alone passed. More than anyone else in the Democratic caucus she has said the absolute correct and moral things about Venezuela, Iran and Ilhan Omar. Tulsi is a complicated figure but she's head and shoulders above the eight folks below her!


1. Elizabeth Warren-Do I really need to explain this? Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the field of 23 has provided more policy substance than Warren. Almost weekly she has introduced a new different well articulated and ardently substantive policy idea. Some critics say she's been too wonky and that's fair. But, for people who constantly squawk about the importance of policy over platitudes they should be ecstatic with Warren's wonkiness. Another critique she has received from her left is that many of her policy ideas don't go far enough (ie: aren't Democratic Socialist enough). Again, that is a fair criticism which I somewhat agree with. No doubt Warren is more interested in "fixing" capitalism than completely overhauling the system. But, her policies directly address income inequality, corporate cronyism, unbalanced taxation (the rich not paying their fair share) and excessive corporate/wealth greed. Elizabeth Warren has also been able to (I believe brilliantly) strike the balance of addressing how these income inequality and cronyism issues adversely affect communities of color in a true progressive manner that those to her left can't accuse her of identity politics. She has also more than adequately addressed climate change, criminal justice reform and immigration. Her most glaring flaw has been her hedging on going full board for Medicare For All. Frankly, it's a sign of how she has great political instincts but also has a twinge of neoliberalism. This twinge is what caused her to stay neutral in 2016 and not endorse Bernie Sanders, which who she was clearly more politically aligned. Some on the progressive left have not forgiven her for this and are holding it against her. I won't go into that clusterfuck right now. (Let me just say: let it the eff go!) Warren is the clear premiere candidate of this group. I would've liked to see her go up against Biden and Buttigieg and destroy their craven bs but I am sure Bernie will do it just fine.






The debates will be at 8pm cst each night in Miami.


Hopefully, the debates will expose some of the frauds and shave this ridiculousness down.


Next Saturday I will discuss the other 10.

Many In The Anti-PC Brigade Are Disingenuous

"Political correctness has run amok and the policing of language is authoritarian like."


The previous quote is a very fair and accurate statement. Political correctness has become ridiculous.


However, many of the people who share this sentiment are simply being disingenuous when they express it. Hell, I'd saying several are just straight up lying!


Now, let's get this straight up front. I am not coming at this as some crazed hypersensitive Twitter sjw.


But, I am coming at this from a practical view. And, yes, I do believe there are some things that shouldn't be said or expressed because they are objectively offensive and their intention is to malign, insult and demean.


The anti-pc crowd loves to depict themselves as people who are just tired of being boxed into a corner where they can literally say anything without offending someone. Ya know, they are victims for decrying victimhood.


Anyway, there is truthfulness to the anti-pc lament. We do live in a culture where some people will find grave offense to anything anyone says. Among some sjws a sense of humor is all but void. Any joke considered ethnic or racial is automatically dubbed racist regardless of content or intent. The most innocuous tweet can be twisted into a full-blown controversy.


But, several anti-pc folks use this argument speciously to mask what their real issues are. Truth is they are not generally upset or dismayed that a totally innocuous comment is portrayed as a virulent racist tweet or an unintentional statement about women is made into a barrage of misogyny.


No, what their problem is that without repercussions they can no longer say whatever they want about whomever they want whenever they want.


All you have to do is question them a little and they usually will give the game away.


What I have noticed is that the most ardent of anti-pc folks get the most riled up after someone has been confronted about an objectively obvious offensive statement. When someone like, oh...I don't know, Rep. Steve King says shit such as Mexican immigrants have "calves the size of cantaloupes from hauling 75 pounds of weed on their backs" they become extremely upset about political correctness run amok. When dudes are on social media not so subtly inferring women are obligated to give men the "p" and subsequently get hammered for it then they display consternation over a society that is "too sensitive".


The undeniable reality is that many who rail against pc culture simply want the "freedom" and un-tethered ability to tell racist and homophobic jokes or to use epithets to describe minorities and women (not the "bad ones" though). And, they'll tell you as much. I guarantee if you're someone who has called out someone for being offensive you've heard, "People are too easily offended. I remember when you could say anything to any group of people and they would laugh along with us."


A couple of years ago I became involved in this Twitter thread. A lady used the word "fag" to describe someone. (Btw the person called the slur wasn't homosexual).


Well, someone else in the thread called her out. Predictably she became upset and offended. She defended herself saying she didn't mean anything by it. The person who called her out suggested she apologize. She refused.


Instead, she embarked on a rant about pc culture and people's "oversensitivity". She bemoaned how "soft" people had become. Then, she ironically went full victim lamenting, "You can't say anything any more without people getting butthurt. Can't say 'fag'. You have to use the pc terms or you're labeled homophobic or racist. I remember when people could use 'regular' language in this country. This pc shit has to stop!"


At this point I interjected saying, "Well, while it's undeniable political correctness has gone too far I don't think it's being pc to not use homophobic slurs or epithets. That is just being a decent respectful human being."


Her response was, "No. It's being pc. This country is too liberal. I remember when I was a kid in the '80s we told 'racial' jokes about blacks in front of this black kid all the time and he laughed with us. He never got his feelings hurt or offended."


I inquired, "What do you mean 'racial'?" She said, "Oh, we said the 'n' word a few times. We didn't mean anything by it. We were just joking. It's not like I am racist. I have a black friend."


And, yes, this heffa really said that. I tweeted back, "LMAO! Wow! Really! Let me assure you that black person might have laughed in front of you, but I guarantee they weren't laughing when you weren't around. In fact, they probably called you 'ignorant'. And, the fact you interjected you have a black friend to justify your comments tells me all I need to know about you."


She snapped, "What does that mean?" I quickly responded, "Boo, it means you are ignorant as fuck. And, you're racist and homophobic. If you or anyone else thinks not saying racist or homophobic shit is being too pc you are showing your trifilin ass for all to see!"


She promptly said, "Fuck you! You blacks always play the victim." I responded, "Honey, you only wish you could fuck me. It would never happen because I have standards. And, I find it amazing that you are the one crying about not being able to say whatever you want but I am playing the victim. Chile, please! GTFOH!"


I didn't get a response back from her.


This exchange is indicative of many back and forths over political correctness I have had on social media and in person. They always devolve into the other person giving away the tell and becoming childish. The railing against pc is hardly ever substantive or sincere, but always a mask for the lamenting the "nostalgia" of the "good 'ol days".


The fervent anti-pc crowd do not come from a principled place. This is why I roll my eyes every time someone rants about political correctness. Why are they ranting? Because some people have taken something way too far or because someone can't say "nigger" any longer without consequence? More often than not it's the latter more than the former.


The entire pc debate is simple. Being respectful to who and what people are is not difficult if you are a decent person. Refraining from using ostensibly bigoted language or telling hurtful offensive jokes isn't being overly politically correct. It is being decent. I don't see why it is so difficult to not be offensive, but then again I am not an asshole who is racist, homophobic, misogynistic or xenophobic.


Without question pc culture has gone way too far overboard, but some shit is not pc but just common courtesy and general respect.


Basically, don't be an asscrumb and you'll be fine.