My Country tis of thee, sweet land of sensitivity

[B.B. Hemingway]

5 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Every time you type out this sort of, "those people" sentence, which you've done a lot, really grosses me out.

 

Quote

completely imaginary idea of PC culture and over-sensitive limp-wristed Americans taking over.

 

 

"Them" is not a a derogatory term (it's an F'n pronoun!), and the fact that you take offense to that is a small slice of proof that the latter does exist. Of course, there's much greater evidence that it does. Just stop by any University and check out their safe spaces, and pick up a list of microagressions to avoid uttering while you're there ,(seriously, look up some of these microagressions given by some of these colleges, and try to tell me PC culture is imaginary).

 

I'm not out to be taken seriously in a political forum on Huskerboard. And it's likely that I take you about as seriously as you take me. You think you're socially "woke". I think your white guilt has gotten the better of you. Fundamental differences of opinion. Have a good one, Landlord.

[BigRedBuster]

BB, please don't take my comments and questions personally, it's more of a general observation of issues effecting our times.

 

This whole "sensitivity" thing keeps getting brought up anytime someone complains or thinks something needs changed.

 

But, in reality, isn't that the essence of all politics, social issues?  It's not monopolized by one side.

 

OK....one side gets accused of being over sensitive by demanding confederate statues be torn down.

Another side is sensitive about them being torn down.

 

One side gets accused of being over sensitive about the way police do their jobs.

Another side is sensitive about NFL players kneeling during the anthem protesting how the police do their jobs.

 

This article claims people are being so sensitive that these items need to be moved in this church.

Another side is sensitive about them being moved.

 

So....complaining about people being sensitive.......sort of shows someone's own sensitivity.  

[knapplc]

That's well said, BRB.  That was the first thing I thought of when I read the OP.  "Who's the sensitive side in this scenario?!?!?"

 

[Nebfanatic]

12 hours ago, ZRod said:

Who oddly enough are respected as people and rarely discriminated against. Funny how that works...

Completely untrue. What are you basing this on? 

[ZRod]

56 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Completely untrue. What are you basing this on? 

 The fact that blacks and hispanics (black much more so) make up a disproportionately large percentage of the incarcerated population compared to their percentage of the US population. The fact that Jim Crowe laws existed deep into the 20th century. The fact that the penalty for crack cocaine possesion vs quantity was 100:1 times more server than it was for cocaine until 2010. The anecdote that we've never heard the expression of being pulled over for driving while asian.

 

[Nebfanatic]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

 The fact that blacks and hispanics (black much more so) make up a disproportionately large percentage of the incarcerated population compared to their percentage of the US population. The fact that Jim Crowe laws existed deep into the 20th century. The fact that the penalty for crack cocaine possesion vs quantity was 100:1 times more server than it was for cocaine until 2010. The anecdote that we've never heard the expression of being pulled over for driving while asian.

 

None of those things makes what you said true. Asian Americans are rarely discriminated against? So wrong I can't even wrap my head around it. Maybe they are discriminated against at a lesser rate than other minorities, but why must we compare compare compare instead of looking at each situation for what it is? Want an anecdote? My fiances sister drives 5 miles extra because she doesn't want to go to the "Vietnamese" donut shop. The donuts are regular delicious donuts mind you but she calls it the "Vietnamese" donut shop because of who owns it and she doesn't like going there because talking to the people who don't have the best English in the world gives her anxiety. 

[ZRod]

There is a difference between general discrimination by the population and institutional discrimination. I'm talking mostly about the latter. Even so there will always be discrimination from the people, but you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me thwt blacks and hispanics aren't treat much more harshly than their asian counter parts.

[B.B. Hemingway]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

BB, please don't take my comments and questions personally, it's more of a general observation of issues effecting our times.

 

This whole "sensitivity" thing keeps getting brought up anytime someone complains or thinks something needs changed.

 

But, in reality, isn't that the essence of all politics, social issues?  It's not monopolized by one side.

 

OK....one side gets accused of being over sensitive by demanding confederate statues be torn down.

Another side is sensitive about them being torn down.

 

One side gets accused of being over sensitive about the way police do their jobs.

Another side is sensitive about NFL players kneeling during the anthem protesting how the police do their jobs.

 

This article claims people are being so sensitive that these items need to be moved in this church.

Another side is sensitive about them being moved.

 

So....complaining about people being sensitive.......sort of shows someone's own sensitivity.  

 

That's fair, and I understand what you're getting at, although I think it's possible to point at something and say "This is ridiculous", without being sensitive to it. The conversation between Landlord and I kind of went awry, but regarding the OP, I don't feel that I'm being sensitive to it. I read it, thought it was an over the top move to appease a few. Although, I imagine that at the heart of the decision it was about money. And to be honest, I find it a little disrespectful (to George Washington).

 

Probably my own fault, but I think a lot of my post have been taken out of context, at least from an emotional standpoint. I don't get worked up about any of this on a day-to-day basis.

 

Though, I do feel this coddling/PC culture will have a profound effect on society. I relate to letting your kids have their way at every turn. Most of us agree that's not good for their long-term psychological health. It's no different with society. Again, look at college campuses nation wide. Even the most loyal of liberals (like Bill Maher) have condemned this culture we're creating.

Edited October 30, 2017 by B.B. Hemingway

[knapplc]

Who's being coddled, though?

 

Regarding the story in the OP, why in the world would a church have plaques up for political figures?  That's just stupid right there, and seems to fly in the face of the First Commandment.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Who's being coddled, though?

 

Regarding the story in the OP, why in the world would a church have plaques up for political figures?  That's just stupid right there, and seems to fly in the face of the First Commandment.

 

It was a church he founded (or helped to do so). Normally I'd agree with you...

 

As for coddling, it's off topic but I was referring to some people's approach to society in general.

[Landlord]

9 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

That's fair, and I understand what you're getting at, although I think it's possible to point at something and say "This is ridiculous", without being sensitive to it.

 

 

 

It doesn't seem you offer this nuance of possible position to the sensitive/PC side. It's equally possible to point at something and say, "There's no real need for this, and getting rid of it would probably help a few people out, so why not eh?"

 

Have you ever set foot on one of these safe-space/micro-agression colleges? Spent any time there talking with the students and faculty, or is your opinion of this informed by the news? I was not that long ago in college, and have spent time on a number of liberal arts campuses with college students in Nebraska. Frankly, I've never seen the thing you're referring to. I'm not saying it exists, but it exists as the rare, ridiculous, liberal equivalent of a bunch of hillbillies in the woods shouting, "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!" It's a non-representative caricature that isn't really useful to argue against for any reason other than making yourself feel better. Reality is that conservatives have been crying about how academia is destroying the next generation for....what, 3 or 4 generations now? I guarantee the same stuff was being decried when you were college aged. 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

why in the world would a church have plaques up for political figures? 

 

As a follow up, why would be upset about them simply moving the plaques to a different part of the church to get rid of the distraction of the general of the rebellious and treasonous south? Once again, the way the story started shouldn't have been reality in the first place, and what a lot of us see as a common sense move to correct something stupid and unnecessary, others seriously or casually decry as over-sensitivity to people who have generally had a pretty tough time in our country. The horror!

[Landlord]

Also B.B., I actually generally agree with you as far as coddling. I disagree with your conclusion that that is the extent of what liberals/academia/the elite/whoever the f#*k the "them" you're talking about is doing, but I agree that coddling is not helpful. Coddling is also not the same thing as compassion. Coddling isn't the same thing as empathy, and it isn't the same thing as tenderness and sensitivity. It's treating someone in an indulgent or overprotective way. Certainly we all do that sometimes, with our kids or our friends or whoever, and sometimes that's helpful (you certainly wouldn't put a rape victim in a room with her rapist to talk it out and suck it up right after she'd been raped, as an extreme example), but that's never the entire story. Cold, tough love is also never the entire story.

 

A buddy of mine posted this on facebook which I thought was interesting:

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I relate to letting your kids have their way at every turn. Most of us agree that's not good for their long-term psychological health.

 

 

So, taking this to the parenting level.  We all agree that it's not good for the psychological health of the child to just let them do whatever they want.

But, then it's being "ultra sensitive" to point out to people when they are doing something that should not be done in a civilized society.  To me, your parenting example would point out that it's not psychologically healthy to just allow people to do offensive things without being confronted about it.

 

Or....going at it from the other direction.  Wouldn't your argument then be that it's best to raise a kid not teaching them what is socially accepted and what isn't?  Wouldn't it be best to just let them do whatever they want?

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

So, taking this to the parenting level.  We all agree that it's not good for the psychological health of the child to just let them do whatever they want.

But, then it's being "ultra sensitive" to point out to people when they are doing something that should not be done in a civilized society.  To me, your parenting example would point out that it's not psychologically healthy to just allow people to do offensive things without being confronted about it.

 

Or....going at it from the other direction.  Wouldn't your argument then be that it's best to raise a kid not teaching them what is socially accepted and what isn't?  Wouldn't it be best to just let them do whatever they want?

 

A plaque honoring the President who helped found the church is socially unacceptable?

[BigRedBuster]

And....to point out topic of the OP.  

 

The country has always been very sensitive socially.  Look at the puritans who were some of the first Americans.  Good Lord were they sensitive and offended by so much that happened in society.  Look at so many religious people all the way through our society.  Look at the "sensitive" little snowflakes that were white people who just were flabbergasted that a black person would even think about eating in the same restaurant.  Look at how sensitive the University of Missouri was when they refused to play the Bugeaters because (God forbid) we had a black kid on our team.   Look at how sensitive Americans were when someone wanted to open a Mosque too close to ground zero (even though the person opening it had worked for years trying to fight tensions between Islam and the west.)

 

The fact is, we are all sensitive about various things.  The outrage over being too "sensitive" usually only comes up when something is mentioned that you don't see for yourself.

Edited October 30, 2017 by BigRedBuster