The evils of political correctness.

[Bomb#20]

You are delusional. I made no claim about what Kaine or speakpigeon knew.

I did not say you had made such a claim. Perhaps you need to take a refresher course in reading comprehension and in basic reasoning.

Here's what you wrote in post #75:

"You have failed to produce an iota of evidence to support your claim that either Kaine or speakpigeon knew it was false."​

Your words do not back up your claim about your words.

In order for your claim that it is a lie, either the original speaker or Kaine or speakpigeon had to know it was false when they used it.

Wrong. If, for example, Alice was an imbecile who originated it and then the rumor passed from Alice to Bob to Kaine to Charles to speakpigeon, and the only one of the lot who knew it was false was Bob, then it is a lie. Bob lied, and those after him repeated his lie.

Until you can show that someone in that chain KNEW the statement was false, your claim that it is a lie is unproven.

True; but you are conflating proof with evidence. The evidence is Trump's original statement plus the fact that it was widely circulated. The actual chain was probably longer than five people; it's improbable that all the people in the chain who'd heard Trump's words were imbeciles.

Trump said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

From your posting behavior, it is seems you believe that
1) an untrue claim is necessarily a lie,
2) persisting in an intellectually dishonest claim somehow makes it true, and
3) engaging in bullying and shaming personal attacks while decrying bullying and shaming tactics is an effective method for convincing people of the errors of their ways.

That's a false damaging claim, and you made it with reckless disregard for the truth. It doesn't seem I believe any of those things from my posting behavior. You got those impressions of me not from my posting behavior but from your personal hostility to me and from your rich inner fantasy life.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think so. I think conservatives are a lot more tolerant of decenting opinions.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Have you been paying attention to U.S. politics at all for the past several years at least?

Local minorities are a lot more tolerant of dissenting opinions than local majorities. Whether conservatives are more tolerant than lefties depends on who is surrounding whom.

 

[laughing dog]

Here's what you wrote in post #75:

"You have failed to produce an iota of evidence to support your claim that either Kaine or speakpigeon knew it was false."​

Your words do not back up your claim about your words.

You left out the early part of the discussion. In post #73, I wrote
“A lie is a knowingly false claim. In order for someone to repeat or spread a lie (as opposed to an untrue claim), then either the originator of the claim knew it was false or the repeater of the claim must know it is false. You provided no evidence to support either basis for the claim it is a lie.”

To break that down, that means that in order for the statement to actually be a lie, you would need to show that

1) the originator knew it was false, or
2) any intermediary repeater knew it was false, or
3) Kaine knew it was false, or
4) speakpigeon knew it was false.

Another way to look at this is that your claim that it is lie is an implicit claim that at least one of those is true.

I was simply pointing out that you had not shown that #3 or #4 were true.

Given the almost three day gap in time between my post and your response, it appears you inadvertently failed to model the same standard of accuracy and intellectual honesty you demand of others.

Wrong. If, for example, Alice was an imbecile who originated it and then the rumor passed from Alice to Bob to Kaine to Charles to speakpigeon, and the only one of the lot who knew it was false was Bob, then it is a lie. Bob lied, and those after him repeated his lie.

Falling back on pedantry does not help your position. You have not shown anyone in the chain knew it was a lie.

True; but you are conflating proof with evidence. The evidence is Trump's original statement plus the fact that it was widely circulated. The actual chain was probably longer than five people; it's improbable that all the people in the chain who'd heard Trump's words were imbeciles….

You confuse your conjectures with fact. You have no idea if Kaine was misspeaking from memory or not. You believe that the statement is a lie because you have concluded from your conjectures that it is untrue and that someone who uttered it knew it was untrue. You are conflating your belief with fact. When you claim “It is a lie”, that is a statement of fact, not statement of your beliefs.

From your posting behavior, it is seems you believe that
1) an untrue claim is necessarily a lie,
2) persisting in an intellectually dishonest claim somehow makes it true, and
3) engaging in bullying and shaming personal attacks while decrying bullying and shaming tactics is an effective method for convincing people of the errors of their ways.

That's a false damaging claim, and you made it with reckless disregard for the truth.

You continue to claim that a particular untrue claim is a lie without an iota of evidence. You persist that it is a lie (instead of you believe it is lie), and you have continue to engage in bullying and shaming posts. There is sufficient evidence to support my three observations. If anyone is making claims with reckless disregard for the truth, it is the person who persists in the claim that Kaine's statement is a lie.

It doesn't seem I believe any of those things from my posting behavior.

Your posts rebut your response. See above.

You got those impressions of me not from my posting behavior but from your personal hostility to me and from your rich inner fantasy life.

If pointing out an argument is faulty, or that one engages in the very behavior in one decries is personal hostility, then the club of posters who respond based on personal hostility has at least one more member than you think.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't believe you could have any convincing argument to support your opinion here. It seems to be broadly the same kind of distinction as a glass half full or a glass half empty. You may be too socially pessimistic for my own taste. Or less generous of character. Too conservative or rightwing perhaps. Or whatever.
EB

You repeated a lie about one of your political opponents that's being spread by your political allies, you didn't care enough whether it was true to bother checking before you helped spread it, and after that you have the gall to accuse me of being less generous of character. That is entirely normal behavior for politically correct shamers.

I never claimed Trump had said all Mexicans were rapists.

If you don't believe me, read my post.

I said, "When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists (...)".

So, first, I didn't claim Trump had said that all Mexicans were rapists because the underlined word "say" above clearly signals a hypothetical. The reason is simple. We were not discussing Trump, we were discussing PC. I couldn't care less about Trump in this context. And if I wanted to claim he had said all Mexicans were rapists, I would have said "when Trump said all Mexicans were rapists".

Second, I didn't claim Trump had said that all Mexicans were rapists because the expression I used, "somebody like Trump", clearly does not and is not meant to refer to Trump. If you want to refer to Trump, you say, "Trump said", not "somebody like Trump".

I obviously think Trump is a pathological liar and I could have conceivably claimed as much in another thread but again this thread isn't about Trump. Here, I merely suggested that's what I believed.

I certainly took advantage of the fact that many people think Trump is a liar. I think pretty much the entire world believes so, including most political leaders, and probably more than half of the American people. Yet, I wasn't in this instance claiming anything about Trump because it just wasn't the subject of the conversation.



And I can still repeat my previous post:

The fundamental defining feature of the shaming type of political correctness (as distinguished from a choice to conform to PC directives oneself) is that the shamer does not give a rat's ass whether his implications about the shaming target are true. When PC shamers do it properly, say, saying "somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists", they are being dishonest bullies. Bullying is the whole point of the exercise. When it's being done for a good reason it's not being done properly.

I don't believe you could have any convincing argument to support your opinion here.

So it's true, you don't have any argument to support your opinion.

Shaming doesn't have to be brutal or extreme. It's really saying that misrepresenting other people may have seriously harmful consequences for them and that it is your responsibility if it comes to that. You can't just babysit people who pay no attention to the welfare of other people. People have to face their social responsibilities. We are a social species.

So take your own advice. PC shamers constantly misrepresent other people, sometimes causing seriously harmful consequences for them. They ought to take responsibility for that and mend their ways. But if PC shamers were ever to collectively adopt the practice of fact-checking their accusations before making them, that would cause the PC meme set's "R₀" basic reproduction number to drop below 1.0, and the current instantiation of the PC phenomenon would die out.

You want to pretend you know PC people are all doing the same bad things. Yet, you can't possibly know all these people and it's very, very, very unlikely that they all would be doing the same thing. No doubt some want to spread lies, others will be pleased to repeat lies without checking, but still others will do it properly, having checked the facts. You want to ignore that but you don't have any argument to support your opinion and your post is a complete derail.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

You repeated a lie about one of your political opponents that's being spread by your political allies, you didn't care enough whether it was true to bother checking before you helped spread it, and after that you have the gall to accuse me of being less generous of character. That is entirely normal behavior for politically correct shamers.

I never claimed Trump had said all Mexicans were rapists.

But you insinuated it.

If you don't believe me, read my post.

I said, "When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists (...)".

So, first, I didn't claim Trump had said that all Mexicans were rapists because the underlined word "say" above clearly signals a hypothetical.

But in the process of expressing this hypothetical, you imply that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

The reason is simple. We were not discussing Trump, we were discussing PC. I couldn't care less about Trump in this context. And if I wanted to claim he had said all Mexicans were rapists, I would have said "when Trump said all Mexicans were rapists".

Which raises the question, given that you couldn't care less about Trump in this context, why the devil did you rope him into your hypothetical in the first place? What the heck does he have to do with it that you felt the urge to throw a gratuitous "like Trump" into a hypothetical that makes perfect sense without it? The only reason to have mentioned him at all that makes sense is because there's currently a rumor going around that he said that, and you ran with it, thereby helping spread the rumor.

 

[laughing dog]

Which raises the question, given that you couldn't care less about Trump in this context, why the devil did you rope him into your hypothetical in the first place? What the heck does he have to do with it that you felt the urge to throw a gratuitous "like Trump" into a hypothetical that makes perfect sense without it? The only reason to have mentioned him at all that makes sense is because there's currently a rumor going around that he said that, and you ran with it, thereby helping spread the rumor.

You are wrong. Since Trump is capable of saying something that stupid and awful, it is simply a reference to someone tangible that such an idiotic statement is possible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I never claimed Trump had said all Mexicans were rapists.

But you insinuated it.

If you don't believe me, read my post.

I said, "When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists (...)".

So, first, I didn't claim Trump had said that all Mexicans were rapists because the underlined word "say" above clearly signals a hypothetical.

But in the process of expressing this hypothetical, you imply that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

The reason is simple. We were not discussing Trump, we were discussing PC. I couldn't care less about Trump in this context. And if I wanted to claim he had said all Mexicans were rapists, I would have said "when Trump said all Mexicans were rapists".

Which raises the question, given that you couldn't care less about Trump in this context, why the devil did you rope him into your hypothetical in the first place? What the heck does he have to do with it that you felt the urge to throw a gratuitous "like Trump" into a hypothetical that makes perfect sense without it? The only reason to have mentioned him at all that makes sense is because there's currently a rumor going around that he said that, and you ran with it, thereby helping spread the rumor.

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

 

[J842P]

But you insinuated it.

If you don't believe me, read my post.

I said, "When it's done properly and for a good reason, say somebody like Trump says all Mexicans are rapists (...)".

So, first, I didn't claim Trump had said that all Mexicans were rapists because the underlined word "say" above clearly signals a hypothetical.

But in the process of expressing this hypothetical, you imply that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

The reason is simple. We were not discussing Trump, we were discussing PC. I couldn't care less about Trump in this context. And if I wanted to claim he had said all Mexicans were rapists, I would have said "when Trump said all Mexicans were rapists".

Which raises the question, given that you couldn't care less about Trump in this context, why the devil did you rope him into your hypothetical in the first place? What the heck does he have to do with it that you felt the urge to throw a gratuitous "like Trump" into a hypothetical that makes perfect sense without it? The only reason to have mentioned him at all that makes sense is because there's currently a rumor going around that he said that, and you ran with it, thereby helping spread the rumor.

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

I can't recall Trump saying that all Mexicans are rapists, and I'm pretty sure that this would have been widely circulated news.

 

[fromderinside]

I can't recall Trump saying that all Mexicans are rapists, and I'm pretty sure that this would have been widely circulated news.

Actually, it was. He said something to effect of "they're rapists, drug dealers, prostitutes, murderers, ...." No mention of "all" anywhere, just a lumping of illegals as above. Lots of low information people heard 'all'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I can't recall Trump saying that all Mexicans are rapists, and I'm pretty sure that this would have been widely circulated news.

Personally, I'm absolutely sure he never said that.


But then again that doesn't change what I think of this guy one bit.
EB

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here's a great documentary about political correctness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU

To summarise: Phillips argues that leftist elites in various positions of influence and power--particularly whites--are afraid to confront problems in minority populations because other leftist elites will call them racist, leaving right-wing populist elites (like the UKIP) as the only ones willing to confront those problems (and offering bad solutions).

I recall Rubin saying something similar leading up to the Trump election and I agreed. When the left goes regressive and shifts focus to ridiculous things like gender pronouns, "rape culture", micro aggressions, etc, the far right and its bad ideas look more sensible to the average Joe.

 

[Bomb#20]

Which raises the question, given that you couldn't care less about Trump in this context, why the devil did you rope him into your hypothetical in the first place? What the heck does he have to do with it that you felt the urge to throw a gratuitous "like Trump" into a hypothetical that makes perfect sense without it? The only reason to have mentioned him at all that makes sense is because there's currently a rumor going around that he said that, and you ran with it, thereby helping spread the rumor.

You are wrong. Since Trump is capable of saying something that stupid and awful, it is simply a reference to someone tangible that such an idiotic statement is possible.

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

So what's the evidence that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do? What has Trump said that's as stupid and awful as someone saying "All Mexicans are rapists."? What are some of these plentiful very good reasons people have to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists? When did he say all members of any ethnicity were criminals of any sort?

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

That helps spread a rumor; and you did make a point about PC. Congratulations.

 

[Bomb#20]

You left out the early part of the discussion. In post #73, I wrote
“A lie is a knowingly false claim. In order for someone to repeat or spread a lie (as opposed to an untrue claim), then either the originator of the claim knew it was false or the repeater of the claim must know it is false. You provided no evidence to support either basis for the claim it is a lie.”

And I addressed that in post #74. I don't actually need to recite the entire history of our exchange in every post.

To break that down, that means that in order for the statement to actually be a lie, you would need to show

In order for it to be a lie, I don't need to show a bloody thing. The world contains lots of lies that have not been shown by me to be lies.

that

1) the originator knew it was false, or
2) any intermediary repeater knew it was false, or
3) Kaine knew it was false, or
4) speakpigeon knew it was false.

Another way to look at this is that your claim that it is lie is an implicit claim that at least one of those is true.

Bingo.

I was simply pointing out that you had not shown that #3 or #4 were true.

Wrong. You were indeed pointing that out, but you were also asserting the existence of "your claim that either Kaine or speakpigeon knew it was false". That's you making an explicit claim that my above implicit claim included only options 3 and 4, not 1 and 2.

Given the almost three day gap in time between my post and your response, it appears you inadvertently failed to model the same standard of accuracy and intellectual honesty you demand of others.

I have a job. There are other demands on my time besides dealing with your sophistry, and most of them are better uses of it.

 

[laughing dog]

And I addressed that in post #74. I don't actually need to recite the entire history of our exchange in every post.

That is not an excuse for misrepresenting a position.

In order for it to be a lie, I don't need to show a bloody thing.

You are the one making a claim of fact, not me. Of course you don't need to substantiate your claim of fact. But then don't expect anyone to take your claim seriously.

Wrong. You were indeed pointing that out, but you were also asserting the existence of "your claim that either Kaine or speakpigeon knew it was false". That's you making an explicit claim that my above implicit claim included only options 3 and 4, not 1 and 2.

I was pointing out you had not met #3 and #4 of the criteria. Duh.

I have a job. There are other demands on my time besides dealing with your sophistry, and most of them are better uses of it.

Absolutely. In fact, given the persistent poor quality of reasoning, of argumentation and of intellectually honesty in your responses in this thread, not responding at all is the best use of your time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are wrong. Since Trump is capable of saying something that stupid and awful, it is simply a reference to someone tangible that such an idiotic statement is possible.

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

So what's the evidence that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do? What has Trump said that's as stupid and awful as someone saying "All Mexicans are rapists."? What are some of these plentiful very good reasons people have to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists? When did he say all members of any ethnicity were criminals of any sort?

Sorry I don't plan to go on a Google search just to satisfy your demands. I'm good as things stand.

We all have heard what kind of language Trump does use again and again. I trust I am a rational person and so I trust the overall impression I personally have and the judgement I personally have long made of Trump and of what kind of things he says. I also observe that my judgement is comforted by the fact that few people have attracted so much criticism, including from his political allies in other countries. It's telling just to listen to Britain's Conservative Party grandees squirm when ask to comment on Trump's pronouncements.

I also make a clear distinction with the propaganda coming from the Left. I did not repeat their propaganda, I expressed my personal opinion as a rational person, pretty much like what most people do anyway, you included.

The reality is that you picked the wrong guy.

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

That helps spread a rumor; and you did make a point about PC. Congratulations.

Yeah, right, so by voting for your political representatives in America you personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies?

As to PC, I didn't advocate PC as your turn of phrase carelessly suggests. Rather, because I'm a rational person, I tried to show why people do it. It's also clear to me that we all do it, to some extent, including you, right now, against me. You're trying to shame me into believing I'm helping spread lies. The use of the word "help" is clearly disingenuous and meant to shame.

If you disagree with this idea that the word "help" suggests the will to achieve what you are said to help achieve, then I'd like you to confirm that you agree that by voting for your political representatives in America you personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies.
EB

 

[J842P]

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

So what's the evidence that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do? What has Trump said that's as stupid and awful as someone saying "All Mexicans are rapists."? What are some of these plentiful very good reasons people have to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists? When did he say all members of any ethnicity were criminals of any sort?

Sorry I don't plan to go on a Google search just to satisfy your demands. I'm good as things stand.

We all have heard what kind of language Trump does use again and again. I trust I am a rational person and so I trust the overall impression I personally have and the judgement I personally have long made of Trump and of what kind of things he says. I also observe that my judgement is comforted by the fact that few people have attracted so much criticism, including from his political allies in other countries. It's telling just to listen to Britain's Conservative Party grandees squirm when ask to comment on Trump's pronouncements.

I also make a clear distinction with the propaganda coming from the Left. I did not repeat their propaganda, I expressed my personal opinion as a rational person, pretty much like what most people do anyway, you included.

The reality is that you picked the wrong guy.

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

That helps spread a rumor; and you did make a point about PC. Congratulations.

Yeah, right, so by voting for your political representatives in America you personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies?

As to PC, I didn't advocate PC as your turn of phrase carelessly suggests. Rather, because I'm a rational person, I tried to show why people do it. It's also clear to me that we all do it, to some extent, including you, right now, against me. You're trying to shame me into believing I'm helping spread lies. The use of the word "help" is clearly disingenuous and meant to shame.

If you disagree with this idea that the word "help" suggests the will to achieve what you are said to help achieve, then I'd like you to confirm that you agree that by voting for your political representatives in America you personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies.
EB

This is quite the dance around the rather unfortunate reality that Trump has never said nor implied what you claimed.

Also, I would agree that American voters have personal responsibility when it comes to the burning alive of Syrians and Iraqis. Call it help, or whatever.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is quite the dance around the rather unfortunate reality that Trump has never said nor implied what you claimed.

How is that 'rather unfortunate'?

And Speakpigeon has never said or implied what you claimed.

Also, I would agree that American voters have personal responsibility when it comes to the burning alive of Syrians and Iraqis. Call it help, or whatever.

That's not what I asked Bomb#20. If you want to reply to the question, please do it properly.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

That's not what I asked Bomb#20. If you want to reply to the question, please do it properly.

Oh, was the question you asked me meant to invite a proper reply? It looked rhetorical.

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

So what's the evidence that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do? What has Trump said that's as stupid and awful as someone saying "All Mexicans are rapists."? What are some of these plentiful very good reasons people have to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists? When did he say all members of any ethnicity were criminals of any sort?

Sorry I don't plan to go on a Google search just to satisfy your demands. I'm good as things stand.

I made no demands. When you claim there exists "a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists", you've got to expect somebody to ask what evidence you have. If you claim there exist "plenty of very good reasons to believe that Christ died for our sins" then somebody is bound to ask what some of those reasons are; it doesn't mean he's making demands of you.

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

That helps spread a rumor; and you did make a point about PC. Congratulations.

Yeah, right, so by voting for your political representatives in America you personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies?

Not quite seeing how that's analogous, but I guess that's between you and your personal demons. No, I don't think the fact that I voted against McCain means I personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies, since it looks to me like McCain was just as likely to do those things as Obama was. One could argue that if the U.S. allowed voters a free choice of representative, and they chose representatives who did wrong, then the voters who chose those people helped them do wrong. But since that's not how the U.S. (or any other democracy) selects its so-called "representatives", I don't see a case for thinking their voters helped them -- let alone for thinking their defeated opponents' voters helped them. So there's a proper reply to your question for you.

What any of that has to do with whether your having implied that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do helps spread the rumor that he said it, is something that perhaps at some point you will explain. Or perhaps you're good as things stand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To summarise: Phillips argues that leftist elites in various positions of influence and power--particularly whites--are afraid to confront problems in minority populations because other leftist elites will call them racist, leaving right-wing populist elites (like the UKIP) as the only ones willing to confront those problems (and offering bad solutions).

I recall Rubin saying something similar leading up to the Trump election and I agreed. When the left goes regressive and shifts focus to ridiculous things like gender pronouns, "rape culture", micro aggressions, etc, the far right and its bad ideas look more sensible to the average Joe.

Odd how so little of that was in the General Election, yet Trump won anyway. What is interesting is how the terms PC, "rape culture", micro-aggressions are such dog whistles to the right-wing, not the left.

 

[bigfield]

I recall Rubin saying something similar leading up to the Trump election and I agreed. When the left goes regressive and shifts focus to ridiculous things like gender pronouns, "rape culture", micro aggressions, etc, the far right and its bad ideas look more sensible to the average Joe.

Philips' message is directed at left-wing elites who shut down discussion about social problems because they are overly sensitive of the potential for negative stereotyping of minorities, a fear that's expressed in the doco by Simon Woolley.

While it falls under the broad umbrella of "stupid shit lefties say and do", it's a different than the things you've mentioned. Philips spends no time criticising leftist academics for any of their other bad ideas*; the takeaway point of the doco is that lefties ought to have a more constructive approach to dealing with facts that they don't like.

Philips' criticism relates to the POTUS election in that the American mass media was largely ineffectual in offering arguments against Trump that resonated with the people who might vote for him. This is partly because the media was fixated on finding reasons why Trump was a sexist and a racist--red meat for their audience. The election result showed that many people either don't give a shit about those things or consider them to be positive traits. Those same commentators missed an opportunity to discredit Trump in the minds of at least some of the people who voted for him, on topics that mattered to them. Much like leftist elites in the UK, those in the US have got their priorities messed up.



*On the subject of gender pronouns: It's entirely reasonable to accommodate transgender people with respect to pronouns, as it's simply a matter of affording those people the same respect as everyone else. Some bloggers, students etc. might get carried away with implementation and activism but the philosophical argument is sound.