PC culture is a problem, and it's awful, but it's not the problem in this case.
As for the police being allowed to protest, I agree that I can't think of anything especially wrong with that.
"...after the library agreed to adjust the exhibit sign’s language to read “Books about Black Lives—The African American Experience”".
What more do they want?
For example, they could have put up a book "Book about White Lives - The European Experience".
This wouldn't go over well in the current political climate, I assume.
So since the police officers are on the other side of this issue, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to be implicitly defending the opposite side.
If during the course of a conversation someone says something you find racist, sexist, Islamophobic or otherwise bigoted, it's open and honest to point out that you think it is so. Of course this is subtly different than calling the speaker names.
Or, perhaps, is the Spanish inquisition comparison a bit hyperbolic?
http://gawker.com/report-hillary-clinton-used-static-noise-m...
She's definitely not getting an brownie points for what amounts to an open-air "closed-door" speech, though.
The clip that circulated was [1] from around 1:09:00, widely quoted:
And not only that, she bleached, which somebody said they never even heard of, in a very
expensive fashion, used chemical, so that nobody will ever be able to see 'em.
But the only way to learn the full depth of her public corruption is to read the 33,000 emails
that she deleted. They're gone. (Pause for the audience to chant "Lock Her Up.") It's very sad.
And not only deleted, folks. This was after, this was after she was subpoena'ed by Congress to
produce. And not only that, she bleached, which somebody said they never even heard of, in a
very expensive fashion, used chemical, so that nobody will ever be able to see 'em. Who does
this? Who does this? Hillary Clinton said under oath that she turned over all of her
work-related emails. But we now know that is just one more Clinton lie. The FBI found thousands
of work-related emails she never turned over, and then another 15,000 emails were just
discovered a few weeks ago. Now today another 30 emails were discovered by the State Department
that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over. These were emails about Benghazi.
In further interviews he has repeated the phrase "acid washing" for this downloading-a-free-space-cleaner-upper-act, and repeated that it was expensive. [2] The same source apparently followed-up with the campaign:
His campaign told us Trump didn’t literally mean that Clinton “acid washed” her emails. It
said that he was using a play on words, referring to Clinton’s joke a year ago about “wiping”
her server with a cloth.
Sorry, we don’t get the play on words, which was not clear in any of Trump’s remarks. Let’s
look at the facts.
> The media is clearly biased and working with the DNC to destroy all of their political enemies. This is corruption at the national-level needs to be stopped.
I mean, no. It's not "clearly" biased. If it's biased it's much more subtle. Like, Trump's video where he brags that he sexually assaults women and gets away with it because he's famous, came concurrently with the Podesta hack. CNN actually discussed a suicidal episode that a major Clinton Foundation employee had, simply because it was in the Podesta hack, even though it has nothing to do with Hillary's present campaign and happened 5 years ago. The media's bias seems to be whatever's salacious, not to whatever's liberal.
> The problem is that if you accuse any Mulim of anything in this country (when you have evidence or a good reason), you are called an 'Islamaphobe'..mostly because of PC culture.
Has this happened to you personally, or are you guessing? I was at a friend's apartment and he complained publicly -- with several witnesses -- about how the Muslims at the apartment across the way seemed to often be staring into his house and it made him pretty scared and he would usually get so creeped out that he would go into another room. Nobody accused him at the time of being Islamophobic, even though this is a literal fear-of-the-Muslims moment, we were all like "ooh, that's weird, I wonder what they're creeping around for." It was only after looking up what direction Mecca is in the US Midwest that we found out that this was part of their normal prayer, and now he's not scared anymore. (We actually had prematurely rejected this explanation; we were confused because his apartment is NE of their apartment, but Mecca is SE of Kansas City on a map. The issue is that they have to pray along the Great Circle route to Mecca and we're so far away from it that this actually points NE.)
> They are allowed to protest...and resign. just like BLM. Why is this wrong?
Nobody said they weren't entitled to; but why this is wrong is answered in the following sentence, "Part of what’s disturbing about both Kansas City incidents is the extent to which they illustrate the gap that has opened between police and the communities in which they work—a divide that, with horrifying regularity, produces far more disastrous and violent results in our inner cities."
Like, it makes sense for "Black Lives Matter" to trigger a resignation of some off-duty cops; you can make a tenuous case that the phrase "Black Lives Matter", even if the library wasn't intending to support it, supports a specific anti-police movement in the US. Like, I don't think that's correct but I think a police officer might reasonably believe it. But a display encouraging the reading of "books about black lives" should not be so offensive to an officer of a multiracial community that it nevertheless causes them to resign a job in a huff. If it does then it points to a serious discrepancy between the officer and the community they're policing, and if it's a systematic discrepancy then that's scary for the library itself, which presumably doesn't want to be targeted merely because they encourage people to read books about people of minority races.
> There are many Americans that choose not to go to the library. How is this the fault of the system?
I don't think the quote you quoted means whatever you think it means. o_O.
> You can't welcome an 'open and honest' discussion and then when someone discusses something that offends you, call them out as a 'racist', 'sexist', or 'islamaphobe'.
I mean, you can. You probably shouldn't, but you can; that can certainly be an open and honest reaction to various things that deserve it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWRrmAmi5AM [2] http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts...
This is literally what she did though! Why else would you not just erase but rewrite with random data? In fact, why were they deleted at all?
Sure, he paraphrased it for the layman. They don't understand what rewriting with random data means. A good analogy is "bleach" which is also the name of the program.
Yes, he dropped in "chemical" in there unnecessarily, but this doesn't make the overall point invalid.
I do essentially this on a regular basis. It's SOP when I'm done with a piece of electronics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the FBI -- it's because I don't want anyone who finds (or buys post-consumer) the device to find my data on it.
I'm currently procrastinating on recycling a couple of old busted Android devices specifically because it's a real PITA to scrub them with any degree of confidence when they're busted.
So yeah, if you look up how to clean a disk, you'll probably find an answer like this. An analogue is even baked into the ATA spec: "security erase enhanced". But actually doing a "security erase enhanced" is bizarrely tedious, especially on Windows, so overwriting it is.
Our cultures values life, so some behaviors have to be banned or regulated. PC is the embodiment of those values.
Racist: because there are over a billion of non-whites. Islamophobe: because there are over a billion of Muslims. Sexist: because there are over a billion of the other gender.
I'm not talking about sjw extremists, those are in every group. But generalizing has never brought anything but misery.
Aren't you side-stepping the issue that Trump has responded to any sort of publicity that isn't positive with threats of lawsuits for years? Especially publicity that calls into question how successful he really is, mostly because he derives a great deal of value from having the "Trump" name/branding associated with wealth and success.
I think that the idea that he may try to silence media critics as President to not be that far-fetched, and something we should be more concerned about then a bunch of hand-waving about specific things that were taken out of context. (I mean Trump's own supporters will take things he says out of context so long as it looks positive for him, so it's not like there is one "right, true and just" side here)
You're also talking about the DNC as if the GOP doesn't also have similar issues.
> The problem is that if you accuse any Mulim of anything in this country (when you have evidence or a good reason), you are called an 'Islamaphobe'..mostly because of PC culture.
On the flip side, you have a lot of people in "this country" (the US) that Islam/Muslims as the "enemy." I'd say that this is a reaction to that, and even then I'm not convinced that this isn't an issue of people talking past each other. People that might have similar views but can't get past seeing the other as an extremist in the "wrong" direction.
> This goes both ways. There is fault on both sides and until there is personal responsibility, things will only get worse.
I'd say that a greater fault lies with law enforcement in general. There is an extreme resistance to the idea of punishing one of their own. Until there is a "you will be punished" feedback loop they will continue to push boundaries because they know that they will get away with it, and "good cops" will turn a blind eye to it because they don't want to loose there job (or worse depending on the specific police dept.).
Put it this way. If the community transgresses against the police, there are guaranteed to be consequences (rightly or wrongly). If the police transgress against the community, consequences are few and far between. To me, this power imbalance suggests that the police should carry a greater responsibility.
> Things like social media has only made it worse, because mobs can now create public policy based on rumors and hearsay and destroy their enemies with lies.
I would say that this is an extension of people creating their own echo-chambers, and issues like Twitter lending itself more to soundbites (only 140 characters) than anything more substantial.
> Our current society is actually starting to look more like China or the Soviet Union every day.
This I will not disagree with, but I will suggest that witch hunts social media is just the tip of the iceberg (and less concerning than consequences being codified into law).
Trump is not the best candidate ever and he has at least as many flaws. We don't have to dispute that.
What we are talking about is that authoritarian PC culture is one way to stifle discussion. It shouldn't be that way. Trump is not the only way forward in preserving freedom of speech.
One thing you can't bring up without some kind of backlash to most republicans and some democrats is the second amendment.
I am very thankful that we can have a discussion on this topic at all on HN, however - even if under anonymous accounts.