Politically incorrect statement that latter change

Post Reply New Topic

Donald Trump says he wants to prevent muslims coming to US.

Very politically incorrect.

So many americans are used to just lay low and let it go.

But then something happened.

A terrorist kill many people and the father of the terrorist show up on Clinton's rally.

So Donald's anti muslim sentiment somehow becomes politically correct.

People that used to be against terrorism didn't have a voice. They didn't speak because they didn't think it's politically incorrect.

Then a major presidential candidate says what he wants to say.

Now they dare to speak.

Do we have other phenomena like this? Something used to be unthinkable but then becomes natural?

If you're asking about this as a general social/political phenomenon, the two concepts you want to look up are the "Overton window" and the idea of a "preference cascade."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-preference-cascade

The Overton window is the window of socially acceptable debate on various issues. The political Left aggressively, and sometimes violently, tries to narrow this window as much as possible through speech codes, censorship, intimidation, etc., and to move it ever more leftward. Trump, whether you like him or not, has strongly reversed this constriction of the Overton window, and stopped its move to the far left.

So in order to be against terrorism you have to generalize all muslims as terrorists, and support trump in his idea to ban certain immigrants because they identify as muslim regardless of whether they are a terrorist or not. Assuming someone who's muslim or looks like they're from the middle east is a terrorist is politically incorrect and well just incorrect in general.

Don't think anyone has called for trump to be unable to speak, however pissing people off is a good way to lose votes, he's not entitled to presidency just because he says what he wants.

OP, once again I must remind you that this is the NEWS forum, not the Politics Philosophy and Religion forum. Political debates belong there. News items go here in the forum you opened this in; if you want to debate news that is about political issues and ideas, IT GOES IN PPR.

Oh sorry. Thanks B19 for your comment. My head often mixes a bunch of info. When I wrote this I remember one terrorist father on Clinton's rally. That's probably why I put this on news.

So is this the right sub forum?

The fact is some cultures simply do not mixed. You don't just allow everybody to get in and get along with them. You should choose who you get along with and only those who are friendly.

Should US restrict people from some country for not getting along?

I have no idea. There are many other reasons behind anti immigration laws. That being said, Trump says something negative about a religion, with indeed problematic reputation. And somehow it's become acceptable. It actually bumps his rating.

Terrorist attacks anywhere makes muslim looks less favorable and makes Trump looks okay.

Trump's position isn't to ban all Muslims even temporarily, the position now is to ban entry from countries "compromised by terrorism" such Syria who the people coming out of are impossible to vet. The attacks by ISIS have brought up a very pertinent question to Muslim integration which admittedly is a much more serious problem in Europe in the US but it is not wrong on our part to want to only take those we feel share our values and can integrate in the American society. I don't want the children or wives of terrorists here, I don't want anybody that sympathizes with that ideology which while a significant number do most Muslims do not. We have to find a way to vet people properly and there have to be a religious-ideological component since we can't just go off who we know has picked up a gun before. For example, if you believe death for apostates & homosexuals then you probably shouldn't be here.

Vetting processes for refugees have been in place for a long time, Jacoby. They're comprehensive and effective.

You do realize political correctness is relative? In Nazi Germany it would have been very PC indeed to hate Jews, and if given a job even non-Jews were punished.

I used to think that there should be no limitation on immigration.

I were an immigrant. I hate INS and IRS. I do not understand why should I thank the rest of american people if I get paid well in US. I should thank my employer and that's it. At most I should thank capitalism.

Now, I realized that people that are too different simply shouldn't mixed. I mean I still don't change my mind on many things. I think it's a stupid idea to prevent immigrant to protect american workers. Ask any economists. And it's useless anyway because if people can't work in US, jobs will simply move to China.

However, if we don't get along, we shouldn't be together. To force any group of people to tolerate certain strange believe doesn't seem to be too libertarian too me. The fact that a group of people is forms a nation called US doesn't make a difference. If anything it makes things impractical. I no longer think it's "moral" for any country to have open immigration policy against the interest of their citizens.

Still mixed feeling. I am seeing the other side of the coins.