MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Study: Voters Worried About Political Correctness Flocked to Candidate Trump

"Support for Trump (and opposition to Clinton) is especially likely amongst people who feel emotional reactance to restrictive communication norms."

TrumpSipa USA/NewscomIn the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, I suggested that Donald Trump's unlikely victory was partly the result of backlash against political correctness—something the Republican candidate deftly turned to his advantage during both the primaries and the general election.

A year and a half later, there's a good amount of evidence supporting this theory. Take this study, produced by a team of researchers at the University of Montana and Syracuse University, titled "Donald Trump as a Cultural Revolt Against Perceived Communication Restriction: Priming Political Correctness Norms Causes More Trump Support." According to its abstract:

In this framework, support for Donald Trump was in part the result of over-exposure to PC norms. Consistent with this, on a sample of largely politically moderate Americans taken during the General Election in the Fall of 2016, we show that temporarily priming PC norms significantly increased support for Donald Trump (but not Hillary Clinton). We further show that chronic emotional reactance towards restrictive communication norms positively predicted support for Trump (but not Clinton), and that this effect remains significant even when controlling for political ideology. In total, this work provides evidence that norms that are designed to increase the overall amount of positive communication can actually backfire by increasing support for a politician who uses extremely negative language that explicitly violates the norm.

These findings complement work done by the mathematician Spencer Greenberg, which showed that believing "there is too much political correctness in this country" was the second most reliable predictor of whether a person would vote for Trump (second only to being a Republican).

When I first started writing about the political-correctness-backlash theory, there was much agreement but also plenty of criticism. Since I write frequently about the excesses of political correctness on college campuses, some said I was committing the "pundit's fallacy" of thinking an issue I care about is something everybody cares about. In a piece for the Niskanen Center, McGill University political scientist (and occasional Reason contributor) Jacob Levy accused me of "mapping my list of excesses onto the voting behavior of 80,000 very-low-information voters in three states." In particular, Levy thought this explanation was relatively unlikely because the pertinent voters would have been poorly acquainted with "any particular political dispute that isn't on national television that day."

I thought that part of Levy's analysis was probably wrong, given that political correctness—on campus and off—is one of the most exhaustively covered topics on cable news and talk radio. Moreover, many regular folks encounter political correctness in the course of their day-to-day lives, even if they aren't constantly inundated with examples of it all around them.

Happily, the very same Niskanen Center has now published a piece by Michigan State University's Matt Grossmann casting some doubt on Levy's claim that "a lot of butterflies flapped their wings to bring about the November 8 result, but we have particularly little reason to think that [political correctness] was one of them."

Grossmann's piece cites the Montana/Syrcause study, among others, to argue that cultural issues mattered far more to Trump voters than economic issues. Raising the salience of cultural issues and political correctness—a strategy undertaken not just by the Trump campaign, but also inadvertently by the Clinton campaign, which thought smearing Trump supporters as racists and sexists would increase the pro-Clinton vote—helped Trump.

It's difficult to parse how important this was, since many voters who picked Trump because he was anti-P.C. would have voted for him anyway. Conversely, voters who weren't just anti-P.C. but outright racist may have picked Trump because they saw him as the more racist candidate. It might be true that they also wanted Trump to win for ordinary anti-P.C. reasons, but these voters can't vote twice.

That distinction matters, because the perception of Trump as racist actually hurt him among voters, according to Grossmann:

His negative statements about minority groups were recognized by voters—but not positively. In open-ended responses, "racist" was the number one negative thing said about Trump even among Republicans. And a surprisingly high proportion of Trump voters said they did not like him personally, often citing his language.

In paid advertising, it was the Clinton campaign that repeatedly raised these issues and endlessly replayed Trump's statements. That made their ad campaign a vast historical outlier compared to prior elections; Clinton talked a lot less about policy issues and a lot less positively overall. Clinton raised the salience of norms about off-limits race and gender discourse, believing it would help her win votes (but may have also activated views of political correctness).

"Voters can simultaneously 1) dislike Trump's bigotry 2) dislike Dems' harping on it 3) perceive that Dems used to care about white working class, now only care about minorities 4) mistrust Republicans on class, but perceive Trump as different," Grossmann explained on Twitter. "In fact, [this] pattern seems dominant."

The Montana/Syracuse study puts it this way:

It is clear that support for Trump (and opposition to Clinton) is especially likely amongst people who feel emotional reactance to restrictive communication norms—and importantly, this effect goes beyond political ideology....

Although Donald Trump presents an interesting paradox of sorts to modern political pundits, his emergence is precisely what a theory focusing on the backfiring of social norms would expect. It is a paradox, but a theoretically expected one: As restrictive norms become ever more salient and heavy-handed, the more they will work in the short-term. But in the long-term, this salient heavy-handedness increases the likelihood that they will ultimately backfire. And this backfiring doesn't just occur for norms that are genuinely repressive to political freedom—it also occurs for norms that have a clearly good and noble aim.

The present study suggests that communication norms that are designed to increase the amount of positive communication may ultimately backfire in political figures like Donald Trump—figures who do anything but increase the amount of positive communication. His emergence should serve as a lesson for students of cultural change and deviance. He is not the first and will certainly not be the last example of popular figures emerging in response to restrictive norms–and the present work illustrates specific psychological processes that help us better understand why that occurs and when it will occur.

Caution is still warranted—the election came down to just tens of thousands of votes in three states, and so several explanations could hold some theoretical claim to having been decisive. But it seems that the political correctness butterfly was indeed flapping xer's wings quite strenuously on November 8, 2016.

Photo Credit: Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Proposed Alt-text: "I gave Stormy this much... bigly."

  • John||

    So calling people racists and telling them it is no longer acceptable to have an opinion that does not express self hatred is a losing election strategy. Who knew?

  • TxJack 112||

    I know right? "Even though you are a racist, homophobic, Muslim hating bigot who is uneducated, uncivilized and deplorable. Please vote for me this Tuesday" LMAO!!!

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    I'm confused and I'm hoping you can help me out. I'm a straight white male. I voted Democrat. I have never felt that Clinton or Obama or anyone has told me anything to suggest that "it's no longer acceptable to have an opinion that does not express self hatred." The message I'm getting - and what people insist on calling "political correctness" - is that it's no longer acceptable to openly express your bigotry or contempt for people based on characteristics like their sexual orientation.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Read some Ta-Nehisi Coates, and you'll find that you are a racist. The leading Democrats cannot get enough of the guy.

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    Huh. I haven't read much Coates, but I feel pretty confident that almost everybody (including me) can be considered "racist" to one degree or another, depending on how one defines "racist." So what?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, per the working definition used by the left, not everybody can be considered a racist. You can't be a "racist" if you're a member of a minority group, or favor racial discrimination in favor of minority groups.

    It's a definition which was consciously designed to make only people on the right "racists".

  • Azathoth!!||

    See this, Jonny Scrum-half? --

    Huh. I haven't read much Coates, but I feel pretty confident that almost everybody (including me) can be considered "racist" to one degree or another, depending on how one defines "racist." So what?

    That's you 'expressing self hatred'.

    Words have meanings. Racist, despite the left's best efforts, still means thinking that people are defined by their race and judging them thereby.

    You have to do racist things to be racist. Simply existing as a non-PoC is not one of those things.

  • kinghiram91||

    Anita Sarkeesian of GamerGate fame laid out the Progressive mindset perfectly. "Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out."

  • Sevo||

    Jonny Scrum-half|5.18.18 @ 1:04PM|#
    "I'm confused and I'm hoping you can help me out."

    Isn't lefty faux-ignorance amusing?

  • mpercy||

    As if you've never heard of so-called white-privilege and micro-aggressions? Disproportionality?

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    I've heard of them. Some of it's stupid, some of it makes sense. None of it makes me feel self-hatred.

  • mpercy||

    "Being exclusionary of trans women partners should be an outlier and marginal position for straight men, not some commonplace expectation. These angry declarations that they have some absolute right to not want to be with trans women are just misplaced and inappropriate,"

    "I also don't believe the blanket claim of 'straight men don't want to be with someone who has a d***!'"

    If you, as a straight white male, are personally not attracted to transgender women and/or biological men (e.g., men in drag or apparently just plain men), then you're a sexual orientation bigot.

    So they say.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " I'm a straight white male. I voted Democrat."

    False consciousness. Poor devil.

  • Nardz||

    " I voted Democrat. I have never felt that Clinton or Obama"

    That adequately meets the selg-hatred requirement

  • Fancylad||

    The message I'm getting - and what people insist on calling "political correctness" - is that it's no longer acceptable to openly express your bigotry or contempt for people based on characteristics like their sexual orientation.

    That's not what your "getting", it's what you're inferring political correctness is.
    You know damn well that you and your ilk have moved the goalposts for what constitutes racism and sexism to the point where simply having an Y chromosome and a melanin deficiency requires public contrition and self flagellation.

    Just be honest like Tony and wear your ctrl-left demagoguery with pride.

  • ThomasD||

    It is an entirely plausible argument that people who do not like being told what they can and cannot say might tend to vote for someone they perceive as as avatar of opposition to the politically or correct. Or support someone just because the 'PC crowd' seems to reflexively hate that person,

    But I am also entirely skeptical of the 'science' that purports to prove these sorts of associations and behaviors.

    Sounds nice doesn't make it at all proven.

  • Siegzon||

    The author went out of his way to say his thesis was not a proven fact, but an interesting supposition. I like articles that ask the reader to think, even though I already have all the answers.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    "who feel emotional reactance "

    What about those of us who feel cold, logical reactance?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You tend to self-segregate anyway so I don't think there's any need to worry about you.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    Is that supposed to be cogerent?

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    lol *coherent?

  • Rich||

    "Cogerent" is a perfectly cromulent word.

  • TGoodchild||

    Beat me to it.

  • TGoodchild||

    Beat me to it.

  • Nardz||

    "Cogerent" is a perfectly cromulent word.

    Each capable of embiggening even the smallest among us

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Sorry, I guess my statement was too complex. Let me try rewording it.

    Nobody cares about your opinion because you've sorted yourself into a small enough group that nobody needs to care about you.

    Better?

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    Not really, it seems you have made a judgment about me that isn't accurate.

    Do you think I'm a Trumo supporter because of my name? What do you think my name means?

    Because if you think I'm a Trump supporter because of my name, then you don't understand it.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Do you think I'm a Trumo supporter because of my name? What do you think my name means?

    Nope, I was answering your question which was, unless I misread, "What about those of us who feel cold, logical reactance?"

    The answer to that question is what I offered.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    So wait, you think those of us who feel cold, logical reactance are "a small enough group that nobody needs to care about you."

    And, you react by saying "Sorry, I guess my statement was too complex. Let me try rewording it.

    Nobody cares about your opinion because you've sorted yourself into a small enough group that nobody needs to care about you.

    Better?"

    Don't you realize you've proven yourself wrong?

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    Honestly, that response of yours looks like you're full of shit, you did think I am a Trump supporter, and now you're backpedaling.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    you did think I am a Trump supporter

    Nope, based on your use of "cold, logical reactance" I assumed you were a libertarian as they are the group that commonly claims that emotions are for pussies. If you're not a libertarian, then my response won't apply to you.

    So wait, you think those of us who feel cold, logical reactance are "a small enough group that nobody needs to care about you."

    If you are a libertarian, then yes. Unless you can somehow make the case that libertarians as a group are some kind of electoral powerhouses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, I for one, could be called a Trump Snorter...

    Trumpty Dumpty, He's quite off-the-wall,
    Trumpty Dumpty won't stay in His toilet stall
    He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
    Totally regardless of whereever He sits
    Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
    He Twits us His thoughts, they're all SOOO deep!
    He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
    No matter the words, however absurd!
    He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
    Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
    They say He'll be impeached by June,
    Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
    So He sits and jiggles His balls,
    Then He Twitters upon the walls
    "Some come here to sit and think,
    Some come here to shit and stink
    But I come here to scratch my balls,
    And read the writings on the walls
    Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin'
    Giving birth to another Texan!
    Here I sit, on the pooper,
    Giving birth to another state trooper!
    He who writes these lines of wit,
    Wraps His Trump in little balls,
    He who reads these lines of wit,
    Eats those loser's balls of shit!"

  • Rhywun||

    norms that are designed to increase the overall amount of positive communication

    If that's their definition of "PC" I think I can stop right there and disregard any following flapdoodle.

  • John||

    Yes. Is that an epic example of newspeak or what? PC is there to increase communication. And freedom is slavery!! You can't make this shit up.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Pretty much. We're talking about "norms" that, 1984 style, are intended to obstruct the expression of any idea the left objects to, by characterizing it as impolite or hateful.

    It's got nothing to do with "increasing the overall amount of positive communication", just suppressing any speech the people in question disagree with.

  • DavidTaylor||

    "just suppressing any speech the people in question disagree with."

    Exactly. I still have my copy of Newt's GOPAC memo from 1996, and Luntz's list. Sing it with me: "Anything liberals can do we can do better."

  • Mickey Rat||

    Referring to everyone who does not buy into your viewpoint as having some kind of "phobia" is certainly conducive to positive communication.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    "In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, I suggested that Donald Trump's unlikely victory was partly the result of backlash against political correctness"

    You and literally the entire rest of the world. Keep bringing those lukewarm takes.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    To be fair, it does still seem to perplex the entirety of the DNC, their activists and the media (but I repeat myself).

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I absolutely hate this analysis. It's basically blaming decent, tolerant, polite people — IOW the "politically correct" — for the fact that Drumpf won. Hogwash! Drumpf's deplorable voters have agency; they are ultimately responsible for their decision to support a white nationalist.

    However, if we're going to examine contributing factors to 2016's disastrous result, let's not call out the people who tried their hardest to stop Drumpf, and instead focus on those who propped up his vile campaign:

    (1) Russia. As is well established by now, Russia hacked the election to install a puppet President.
    (2) The media. Coverage of this election should finally put to rest the idea of a "liberal media." In fact, Hillary's perceived flaws (her e-mails, her minor fainting incident, etc.) were endlessly amplified, while Drumpf's behavior was normalized.
    (3) The Comey letter. Statistics genius Nate Silver has written extensively about how the Comey letter was probably the deciding factor that pushed Drumpf over the top.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The issue here is that the left have adopted as a standard tactic pretending that agreeing with them defines being "decent, tolerant, polite", and expressing any disagreement with them is thus definitionally indecent, intolerant, and impolite.

    And people have gotten tired of this, and now reflexively reject complaints premised on decency, tolerance, and politeness, because so much of the time they're just a cover for censoring dissent.

    This has a cost, because some actual indecency, intolerance, and impoliteness sneaks in under the cover of dissent. But that's a cost that's unavoidable as long as most public appeals to those values are just barely disguised demands for political censorship.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The issue here is that the left have adopted as a standard tactic pretending that agreeing with them defines being "decent, tolerant, polite", and expressing any disagreement with them is thus definitionally indecent, intolerant, and impolite.

    This isn't really a left/right thing. This is just a tribal thing. The right is just as guilty of it as the left - they've built this entire narrative of what it means to be a "real American", and guess what, in their view, "real Americans" are people who vote for Republicans. So Democrats are not just people they disagree with, but people whose patriotic loyalties are to be questioned.

    Frankly I am tired of having my patriotism questioned by those on the right, even if just obliquely, if I don't clap and applaud at every dumb idea that Republicans dream up.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Patriotism is not really a difficult concept to get on board with.

    Either you want America to be the great Constitutional Democratic Republican that is it or you don't.

    While Republicans and particular RINOs are not the gatekeepers of patriotism in the USA, there are some common indicators of patriotism.

    If you vote Democrat, you are voting for socialists who are determined to dismantle the foundation of our Republic- the Constitution.

  • DavidTaylor||

    Which part of the constitution bans socialism?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Which part of socialist bans constitutions?

  • Microaggressor||

    Which part of the constitution enumerates the power to enforce socialism?

  • DavidTaylor||

    Which part of the constitution enumerates the power to enforce Social Security or the FDA? The constitution sets out a framework for government, not an economic system.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

  • DavidTaylor||

    Not relevant. The same protections may exist with a system of socialism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution is clearly loaded with language that gives government unchecked power to control the means of production. NOT!

  • Sevo||

    "Which part of the constitution bans socialism?"

    Oh, about all of it.

  • DavidTaylor||

    For example?

  • DavidTaylor||

    For example?

  • Mock-star||

    Article 1 section 8

    Amendment 9

    Amendment 10

    Off the top of my head

  • DavidTaylor||

    Article 1, section 8 outlines the powers of congress -- nothing to do with socialism (though be careful, since that's also where Congress is given the power to arm the Militia, presumably the militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment....).

    9th Amendment??? "...rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Huh? What does that have to do with socialism?

    10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What's the point for socialism? Would that apply to Social Security? The FDA?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Is this confusing? I think not. The question was, what part of the constitution bans socialism?

    The answer was, the part of the Constitution which doesn't give the federal government any powers with which to impose socialism, (You only get socialism if it can be imposed.) and the rights Americans are entitled to, which conflict with socialism.

    You can't get socialism without violating the Constitution, which is functionally equivalent to the Constitution banning socialism.

  • TotallyRealMerikanPatriot||

    "Patriotism is a broad range of ideas and policies that can lead to the betterment of the country and the unification and prosperity of its citizens."

    "Oh, except for Democrats. They're all evil socialists who are contriving ways to bring down this glorious nation and subvert the moral fabric of humanity."

    Give me a F-ing break. Chemjeff is right, self-righteous right-wingers are hellbent on the idea that their beliefs are the only ones that can bring benefits to society and the nation under their self-styled guise of "patriotism."

  • Nardz||

    "bring benefits to society"

    Well... There ya go

  • ||

    ^^ This guy gets it.

  • ||

    I meant chemjeff.

  • Azathoth!!||

    This isn't really a left/right thing. This is just a tribal thing.

    No, it isn't. This whole 'this is a tribal thing' narrative that gets trotted out in cases like this is, itself, leftist distraction from their attempts to silence dissent.

    The right is just as guilty of it as the left - they've built this entire narrative of what it means to be a "real American", and guess what, in their view, "real Americans" are

    ...people who believe in the ideals of the USA. Because that's all America is, a set of ideals. It's not a race, or a creed, or an ethnicity or anything like any of the prehistoric garbage that the rest of the world has at it's core.

    It is a set of ideals written down by a bunch of people a little over two centuries ago. And nothing else.

    Accept those ideals and you can have whatever race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality or whatever other marker you want to assign to yourself so long as that marker does nor abrogate those ideals or the ability of other to follow those ideals.

    And you know what? Republicans, for all their own failings, hew closer to those ideals than the Democrats ever have.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Hillary has agency; she is ultimately responsible for her election loss.

    There, that's better.

  • CDRSchafer||

    You are a complete moron if you believe Trump is a puppet of Russia. Or just a butthurt supporter of cankles.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Or a fake troll account.

  • Nardz||

    OBL is neither fake nor a troll.
    He's a satirist who understands and concisely presents the progressive/leftist/(Reason)staff position.
    In that sense, he is among the most honest commenters here.

  • Fancylad||

    decent, tolerant, polite people — IOW the "politically correct"

    There's nothing decent, tolerant or polite about the politically correct.

    You're race-baiters, aristocratic class warriors and social engineers. Fulminating, bitter, self-righteous tweeters and tumblrers calling down the harpies on anyone insufficiently adjusted to the new bien-pensant parameters of the day.

    You've ghettoized Blacks, aborted their children and destroyed their families, you've elevated body dysmorphia and mental illness to a sacrament, and you're trying to destroy the working class by importing pseudo-slave labour to work your fields and factories on a massive scale through illegal immigration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It could just be that Trump has proven himself to be the better president than Hillary's proven government track record.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    How does that explain why people voted for Trump? He had no record as president before he was elected.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No record was better than Hillary's record.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You... don't really know how studies work, do you?

  • VinniUSMC||

    Almost any record is better than HIllary's record.

    She lost, get over it.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    She lost, get over it.

    Beg pardon? What do I need to get over? Oh, that's right, I'm not licking Trump's nutsack therefore I love Hillary. Man that's a dumb argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You do seem to lick Hillary's nutsack a lot though.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You do seem to lick Hillary's nutsack a lot though.

    I'd like you to link to just one place where this is true.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    loveconstitution1789|5.18.18 @ 10:06AM|#
    No record was better than Hillary's record.
    $park¥ leftist poser|5.18.18 @ 10:15AM|#
    You... don't really know how studies work, do you?

    Luckily, I didn't have to go far.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You're dumb, I mean colossally dumb. If you think me calling you dumb is the same as licking Hillary's nutsack then you're also clearly insane.

    I guess I should have known you were insane when your response to a study that asked why people voted for Trump is that Trump is a good president. As if someone in America was asked "why did you vote for Trump?" and they responded "well, I like how he's handling the office right now."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a joke dipshit. I mean, you're a joke dipshit.

    You just are not good at replying to comments, I guess. Hopefully you will get better someday.

  • Rich||

    Hillary's *broken* record?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Broken record indeed.

  • Fancylad||

    As opposed to Obama's year as a senator?

  • Fancylad||

    As opposed to Obama's whole year as a senator?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "And this backfiring doesn't just occur for norms that are genuinely repressive to political freedom—it also occurs for norms that have a clearly good and noble aim."

    Like I believe these researchers could actually tell the difference. I doubt there even IS a difference. The left thinks it's good and noble to suppress political freedom, because it's the freedom to disagree with THEM. And they're right, so how could disagreement with them be anything but horrible?

  • Ed Grinberg||

    "[I]f one really believes that such a solution [perfect society, Utopia] is possible, then surely no cost is too high a price to pay for that? … Since I know the only true path to the ultimate solution of the problems of society, I know which way to drive the human caravan; and since you are ignorant of what I know, you cannot be allowed to have liberty of choice even within the narrowest limits, if the goal is to be reached... [I]f there is resistance based on ignorance or malevolence, then it must be broken..." (Isaiah Berlin)

  • TxJack 112||

    I would argue people sick of political correctness, being labeled as racists or some other vile term and with worries about the economic future of the country flocked to Trump. For eight years, anyone who opposed Obama's agenda for any reason, was labeled a racist. If you expressed any fear about Islam and terrorism, your an Islamaphobe. If you professed traditional, Christian values, you are a bigot and homophobe. Trump won because he was brave enough to say identity politics is crap. Think about it, the biggest issue for the media and Democrats prior to the election was transgenders and bathrooms. They were obsessed about who was allowed to use what bathroom. When professional sports and companies started telling average people what they were supposed to believe and how to act, people said enough. People are sick of the wealthy and privileged in this country living one way and telling us we have to live another or we are terrible people. Identity politics implies the person being addressed is too stupid to think for themselves and must allow the government to think for them. People worried about paying their bills and raising a family do not give a crap about who uses what bathroom. That is why Trump won.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    With the bathroom thing, its that people do care but don't want government involved nor do women want to yell at dudes (who feel like women that day) when they are trying to take a piss in private. Guys don't care if women use the Men's room.

  • DavidTaylor||

    "that people do care but don't want government involved"

    Didn't people want government to restrict who could use which bathroom? How is not government involvement?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    After the left wanted the government to use force open whatever bathroom people felt like using that day. Lefties cannot have citizens harassing other citizens with dicks who want to use a women's bathroom.

  • DavidTaylor||

    What? The government already restricted who could use which bathroom. The new push was simply to change what the government restrictions were, not to suddenly involve government where government had never been before. Again, how has government not been involved in the issue of public bathroom use, from the start?

  • retiredfire||

    The initial restrictions on who could use which bathrooms - men in the men's room, women in the other - was a very widely accepted position.
    When government decided that they could force us into a position that was only tailored for a few, but could have much more widespread implications, those who widely accepted the initial restrictions expressed their objections, only to be called all sorts of pejorative names.
    "Political correctness" dictates that once someone is called those names, their opinion shall no longer be heard. People, who are told they should no longer speak, tend to rebel against that.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Didn't people want government to restrict who could use which bathroom? How is not government involvement?

    No.

    They wanted the city government of Charlotte (where this all started) to NOT tell private businesses what to do with their bathrooms.

    Then they wanted various local governments to not mandate idiotic bathroom policies, locker room policies and changing room policies.

    People wanted to let businesses to decide on their own how to deal with this tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny 'problem'.

    The SJW community (NOT the LGBT or the trans community) wanted to extend government control over private property.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Trump won because he was brave enough to say identity politics is crap.

    oh you've got to be kidding me

    Trump engaged in the biggest identity politics campaign of them all, nationalism.

    People worried about paying their bills and raising a family do not give a crap about who uses what bathroom.

    The ones freaking out the most about transgendered people using the "wrong" bathrooms were the folks on the right.

  • John||

    Because the left decided to make it an issue

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trans people are mentally disturbed.

    This also was a barely discussed issue until the left made literal federal cases about this and the bathrooms.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Trans people are mentally disturbed.

    Well, at least you're not calling anybody a racist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties are racists.

    Nazis are socialists.

    Anything else today?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You should be embarrassed by your responses. You won't be, but you should be.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would I be embarrassed? I would especially not be embarrassed because YOU think I should.

    Feel free to discuss why my statements are incorrect.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Why would I be embarrassed?

    Exactly my point.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    $park¥ leftist poser|5.18.18 @ 12:49PM|#
    Why would I be embarrassed?
    Exactly my point.


    You're dumb, I mean colossally dumb.

  • Tony||

    Hey love, I want an honest answer. When you go for news, what is the main source you use?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sir, yes, Sir! Right away Sir!

    I source all the news available to me that day. Then I sort based on what I feel like reading.

    For example I don't go to CNN, to see what CNN thinks the news is.

  • Tony||

    That wasn't an answer.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It was an answer Tony. You just don't know how to find sourced news, do you?

    I will tell you how to find sourced news if you admit Nazis are socialists.

  • retiredfire||

    Tony's just trying to blame your opinions on the left's bete noir, FoxNews.
    The left thinks that this sole, semi-conservative outlet, because it is not hard-left, like the rest of the MSM, results in people like you, and me, having this distorted view of things.
    Any time you express an opinion that the left disagrees with, you will be accused of it being something you heard on FoxNews, thus unworthy of belief.
    "FauxNews lies all the time", doncha know?

  • JesseAz||

    You should be embarrassed because you don't agree with my world views. What a stupid assertion you make.

    Transgenderism is still in the DSM. The largest study on the behavior was pushed out by JHU just a few years ago, it is a mental disorder. It shares the same spectrum as body dysmorphia and ableism. Just because an illness os celebrated doesn't mean it stops being a mental illness. We don't encourage those with ablism to cut off body parts. We don't encourage schizophrenia patients to have conversations with the people they imagine. We don't have aneorexic patients go on diets. For each we try to treat the mental health issue.

    A lifestyle behavior that increases rates of suicide, per the JHU study, should not be celebrated just because. You link it to homosexuality when it is a completely different spectrum of human behavior.

    There are not 35 gender types. Believing so just shows you're an idiot.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You should be embarrassed because you don't agree with my world views. What a stupid assertion you make.

    Good thing nobody made that assertion. He should be embarrassed for being a proud, raging hypocrite. For thinking it's bad when the stupid lefties call him a racist while he calls transgender people mentally disturbed and lefties racists. I'm sure that's a winning strategy in your book because it's different when you do it. But honestly it's just boring old run of the mill tribalism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw Sparky, I would never be embarrassed for being what you call a "racist" or 'hypocrite".

    Honestly, you're one of the dumbest people on here. I mean colossally dumb. I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

    We're all a tiny bit racially discriminating. Some people even are hypocrites and don't mean to be.

    Lefties use brown and black people as serfs because they don't think that those races can handle life themselves. That and Americans won't put up with their socialist bullshit much anymore. Lefties have to ship in non-Americans to change those voting demographics. Lefties don't care about people except to use them.

    Trans people don't even know what sex they are. Then they want others to share in a delusion. No thanks. My advice is to get as much mental help as you can.

    Life is hard enough without racist lefties and chicks with dicks trying to boss me around and kill me. Fuck them.

  • JesseAz||

    You should be embarrassed because you don't agree with my world views. What a stupid assertion you make.

    Transgenderism is still in the DSM. The largest study on the behavior was pushed out by JHU just a few years ago, it is a mental disorder. It shares the same spectrum as body dysmorphia and ableism. Just because an illness os celebrated doesn't mean it stops being a mental illness. We don't encourage those with ablism to cut off body parts. We don't encourage schizophrenia patients to have conversations with the people they imagine. We don't have aneorexic patients go on diets. For each we try to treat the mental health issue.

    A lifestyle behavior that increases rates of suicide, per the JHU study, should not be celebrated just because. You link it to homosexuality when it is a completely different spectrum of human behavior.

    There are not 35 gender types. Believing so just shows you're an idiot.

  • Tony||

    You're just completely wrong. DSM5 lists gender dysphoria as the distress people feel when their bodies do not align with their perceived gender.

    It states that people often feel a sense of relief (that is, become more mentally healthy) when they attain gender reassignment surgery.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are 2 sexes. Male and female.

    Anything else is an abnormal human. Not that abnormal humans cannot function in society but they are the outliers not the males and females.

    Same thing with homosexuality. Hetero sex is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal. Homosexuals are the outliers.

    Too many times, the outliers want everyone else to force others to conform their abnormal ways. Its also wrong to force abnormal people to something they are not.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And it's well established that they go on to commit suicide at the same rate anyway, even if they've moved to someplace where nobody knows they're not what they've altered themselves to appear.

    Because having your brain messed up so that you can't accept you're not what you are isn't fixed by mutilating your body to look more like your delusion. You've still got a messed up brain.

    The surgery doesn't fix anything, any more than a diet cures anorexia.

  • Nardz||

    "distress people feel when their bodies do not align with their perceived gender."

    So... literally a disorder.
    Literally
    .

  • Jerryskids||

    The ones freaking out the most about transgendered people using the "wrong" bathrooms were the folks on the right.

    Here, let me jab you in the eyeball with this icepick and let's see which of us is the one who freaks out the most about it.

    See, here's the problem, one side thinks allowing whoever wants to to use whichever bathroom they want to is perfectly normal and reasonable and nothing to pay any attention to and anybody who thinks otherwise is some weirdo kicking up a fuss about nothing. Because they're racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic Nazis and isn't that proof enough that we're on the right side of history?

  • Microaggressor||

    Women who desire a locker room without a bunch of dongs swinging around are just a bunch of right wing reactionaries.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. Guys don't really care about women using Men's rooms.

    The lefty reactionaries attack any man who even checks out a woman or gives a non-PC sexual compliment but are fine with men hanging out in a women's restrooms.

  • Heraclitus||

    LOL, Trump was the result of a tantrum.

    At any rate, it helps that he is a charismatic con man and we are a nation of gullible rubes. We are full of people who buy into pyramid schemes and think they are going to be rich. So sure, if someone comes along and tells them they can be rich and let their inner bigot-flag fly it's all win-win.

  • Microaggressor||

    We got an independent thinker over here.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    tl;dr: People are fed up with (1) nannyism and being told how to behave, and (2) politicians lying their ass off about the most ordinary bullshit.

    So Trump got a lot of votes because (1) he made fun of political correctness, and (2) he wasn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill politician.

    Sure he lied. Every politician lies. Politicians trying to smear Trump as a liar were just the ordinary run-of-the-mill politician. It didn't matter that they were right. All it really did was draw attention to Trump. Anybody who scares other politicians stands out. The only thing worse than no publicity is boring ordinary run-of-the-mill publicity.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    One problem is, "Political Correctness" encompasses such a broad range of beliefs and behavior. It really isn't an adequate term to describe the entirety of the phenomenon.

    For starters, there is the question of WHAT constitutes "political correctness". There is the "mild" form, that is basically about just being considerate and polite (i.e., "don't tell racist jokes in public"), and then there is the "severe" form, that tries to enforce doctrinaire behavior to the point of absurdity (i.e., supposed cultural appropriation with prom dresses).

    Then there is the question of HOW offenses to "political correctness" are supposed to be dealt with. The "mild" answer is just a rebuke ("hey, I'm offended by your racist joke"), but then the "severe" answer is to use every tool available just short of government coercion to try to ruin that person's life.

    I don't think anyone here would seriously object to this "mild" form of political correctness. It's the "severe" form that gets everyone worked up.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Nail. Head.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many people find the attempts to shut down discussions under the guise of PC the most troubling.

    Those attempts to shut down discussion seem to be coming from the left when people decide not to shut down their non-PC discussions.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem is that it looks to me like, if you don't stop it at the mild form, it almost inevitably transforms into the severe form. And it's harder to fight because you've already conceded the base principle, and are only arguing about degree.

  • ||

    Well, and even the mild form demands respect or presumes a certain code of conduct that may or may not be true, applicable, and/or consistent and, in plenty of situations is completely unknowable with even the slightest distortion of or ambiguity in context. PC is, by virtue of hanging it's hat on the 1A hook, a necessary evil at best. You, presumably, can't tell by the color of someone's skin whether they've earned the right to say 'nigger'. So, the assumption that they haven't not only demarcates the listener/recipient/offended as a filthy racist it is also a (informal) presumption of guilt.

  • ||

    I don't think anyone here would seriously object to this "mild" form of political correctness.

    Disagree. There are plenty of times when speech is entirely meant to be offensive, both in public and in private, and in defense of other more fundamental rights or to cast shade on greater offenses or even attrocities. At such times, the polite "Please be less offensive." is or can be a bit of an evil act or, at the very least, just as unwelcome and offensive as the original utterance.

  • Rich||

    it seems that the political correctness butterfly was indeed flapping xer's wings

    Sheesh, Robby -- it's "*xis* wings".

  • Eidde||

    The other guy's resonses are "emotional" and "psychological."

    In contrast, *my* responses are calm and rational.

    You can tell because unlike the emotional hicks, I use lots of fancy words when regular words would have done just as well.

  • Ron||

    That was my thinking of what the study was trying to say. Another excuse for Trump wining and not because of Hillary's actions and what she though of the deplorable electorite

  • NoVaNick||

    Exposure to PC and econutz while I attended an elite university was enough to turn me off from the democrats 25 years ago, despite having been raised in an extremely liberal family who thought Reagan was the antichrist, so I guess things don't change much.

    Trump isn't the answer though-he's only emboldening them as we see with #Resist and #BlueWave. I fact, I think PC will only get much worse thanks to him

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It gets worse if you resist it, it gets worse if you surrender to it.

    The only way it doesn't get worse is if you defeat it.

  • Microaggressor||

    What you're seeing now looks like the culture in its death throes. The harder they lash out, the more reasonable people they drive away from their nutty religious cult.

  • Nardz||

    ^this

  • Nardz||

    Shortly after college and around Obama's election it became apparent to me that leftism - fanatical (Christian) morality thats rejected the taditional notion of "God" (but replaces it with gov, substituting utopian society for utopian afterlife) and in which personal identity is inextricably linked with political ideology - would inevitably reach a breaking point.
    You see, Progressivism (totalitarian socialism... but I repeat myself) is entirely reactionary: it is based on "righting" the "wrongs" of the world, yet is dogmatic. Thus the "wrongs" of history - racism, sexism, violence, environmental change, poverty, etc - are unalterable dogma. A person's value IS their opposition to such evils.
    What happens when those wrongs/evils cease to be prevalent? The leftist must keep hold of their values - opposition to those wrongs - and the fantasy that evil abounds must continually increase in inverse proportion as the reality of those evils decreases.
    At some point, fantasy becomes a greater proportion of their perception than reality (as a means to maintain self esteem and purpose) and catastrophically destabilizes the psyche.

  • Nardz||

    Nervous breakdown becomes inevitable as instinct for self-preservation kicks in, seeking to realign perception with reality by correcting then creating a new paradigm.
    But the ideology (superego) has a will and seeks its own preservation, even to the detriment of the individual (who is obviously not indivisible). On a singular level, individual instinct is stronger than ideological in most/many/some cases and see a person go through this nervous breakdown - sometimes recovering, sometimes broken beyond repair.
    However, the ideological gains strength collectively, and thus persists beyond the individual. Progressivism has been doing so successfully for a few years beyond its logical breaking point.
    Now, Trump comes along and the cracks turn to gaping fissures.

  • Tony||

    Their mistake, fucking sensitive assholes.

    "You talk about civil rights in a way I disapprove of, so I'm gonna vote for the most incompetent human being on earth to be president! Take that!"

    Who's the real problem here?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'm going to call the guy who defeated my candidate while being outspend 3-1 and having the media united against him the most incompetent human being on the face of the earth, and then expect you to respect my judgment!"

    The real problem here is you're believing your own trash talk.

  • Tony||

    Estimates are that he got billions of dollars in free media. They weren't against him. Not by a longshot. And I'm not even talking about FOX News sucking his nuts and Mika and Joe licking his ears. He was ratings gold.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Billions in free publicity.

    Lock Trump up for getting those media types to give him that air time.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.18.18 @ 1:06PM|#
    "Estimates are that he got billions of dollars in free media."

    Estimates are you're a fucking imbecile.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Hillary got billions of dollars of free attack ads run by the media, which you call him getting free media.

    They were against him, just incompetently so, in the exact way the OP discusses.

  • retiredfire||

    Trump got millions in free media DURING THE PRIMARIES, because that media thought he was going to be the easiest for HiLIARy to beat.
    Once he was the nominee, as is the general case with the MSM, they turned on a dime, attacked him relentlessly, and did everything they could to get their desired outcome - a win for the communists.
    All you commies are still terminally butt-hurt that these tactics failed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Forgotten Man here is the pseudoscientist who invents hobgoblins as inducements to ban nuclear reactors, freon, carbon dioxide... in every case based on allegations measurably and demonstrably false. So long as intellectuals of the looter persuasion continue to attack electrical generation as rabidly as the other superstitious looters attack women's clinics and plant leaves, they will be a more effective Fifth Column to defeat the Dems than anything anyone wearing a MAGA cap could possibly come up with. Even the Prohibition Party has fallen for econazi warmunism, probably as a feint.

  • Tony||

    So extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't contribute to a greenhouse effect?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oxygen sure does. Lets get rid of all the oxygen.

  • Ron||

    Can't have one without the other

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    In a logarithmically declining way, sure. But you don't get dangerous warming without assuming all sorts of positive feedbacks that have the Earth teetering on the edge of turning into Venus all the time.

    It's like your model says "tossing this pebble down the cliff will cause an avalanche", and when somebody doubts it, you claim that they think rocks don't fall.

    When they're really doubting the cliff is one pebble away from collapse.

  • Stevecsd||

    Well, not always. There have been times in earth's past history that the CO2 concentration has been in the 4,000-5,000 ppm range. When the CO2 was that high we didn't have a huge global warming meltdown. It is now about 1/10 of that, around 440 ppm. It is unlikely to happen now, either.

  • Stevecsd||

    And at the time the CO2 concentration was in the 4,000 ppm range there weren't any/many humans around.

  • MSimon||

    So human presence causes global warming.

    Got it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    In all fairness, because I think it IS necessary to mention evidence contrary to your own position, in the distant past, when CO2 levels were that high, the Sun wasn't as bright as today. The Sun is gradually getting brighter as its evolution through the main sequence proceeds.

    Eventually we might have to do something about that.

    It doesn't change the primary point, though, which is that the models don't say CO2 will cause dangerous warming. They say CO2 will cause a trivial degree of warming, which will result in more water evaporating, which will warm things up so that more water evaporates, in a positive feedback loop that's just short of turning the planet into a steam bath every time a volcano erupts.

    And doubting that positive feedback isn't the same as denying that CO2 blocks infrared.

  • TotallyRealMerikanPatriot||

    "Science is hard. Me head hurt. Scientists must all be wrong because me no understand."

  • Mickey Rat||

    The incompetent lost the election.

  • colorblindkid||

    I tried argue with a bunch of SJW fold on Twitter about why it is bad to punch Nazis, and that isolating and kicking them out of society will do more harm than good, and I was literally put on a list of Nazi sympathizers.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    And if you're not interested in polishing Trump's dick you'll be put on a list of Hillary sympathizers. What are ya gonna do?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not suck Hillary's dick.

  • Finrod||

    Point and laugh at both sets of idiots.

  • Microaggressor||

    Constructive criticism doesn't sit well with cultists. It just exposes you as a nonbeliever not to be trusted.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The leftists are really disappointed at how many nonbelievers there actually are. They thought they had more of us on their side.

  • Harvard||

    This is where we are today. It takes university studies to validate common sense.

  • Jerryskids||

    It is clear that support for Trump (and opposition to Clinton) is especially likely amongst people who feel emotional reactance to restrictive communication norms—and importantly, this effect goes beyond political ideology....

    This doesn't really tell us anything about how this swung the election as compared to previous elections - if you're suggesting this group swung the election you'd have to know how many of this group voted for Obama last time and Trump this time. I mean, if it turns out they all voted for Romney last time, why wasn't Romney elected? Why was this group big enough to swing the election this time but not last time?

    From what I can tell, it was Hillary's "baskets" that turned the election and one of those baskets would be the people sick of the PC nonsense. (And no, Hillary did not call Trump supporters a basket of deplorables, stop lying and stop listening to liars.) Hillary's "basket of deplorables" remark was similar to Romney's "47%" remark that got twisted into something it was not.

  • Jerryskids||

    Hillary's remark was that there were 3 "baskets" of Trump supporters, the die-hard GOP who wouldn't vote Democrat to save their lives, the traditional blue-collar union Democratic base who felt their concerns weren't being addressed by the D's, and the "deplorables", the sort of trash the Dem's would disavow as voters. That second basket brings to mind both Reagan's "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the party left me" and Hillary's own husband's remark, "It's the economy, stupid". Hillary was, in her own tone-deaf way, simply pointing out that if the Dems wanted to pull off some of Trump's supporters, they needed to focus more on basic day-to-day concerns of average Americans and less on the bullshit that made them sound like a pack of 30-year old philosophy graduate students sitting around smoking dope in the dorm room. But Hillary hasn't yet figured out the lunatics are running the asylum over there on the Left.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "And no, Hillary did not call Trump supporters a basket of deplorables, stop lying and stop listening to liars"

    Any more than Trump called all Mexicans rapists, in fact.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Linguistically, the wording attacked as "politically incorrect" coincides perfectly with anything communist or lay-socialist Altrurians find objectionable, but Nationalsocialists can live with. But phrases that disguise inducements to mysticism and robbery, such as say "your" prayers, or pay "your" taxes are no less insidious. They refer to someone else's impositions as if they were your own invention or doing. Newspeak is everywhere.

  • tlapp||

    PC is just a tool to limit and hinder free speech. So Trump won because he was the candidate of free speech. Someone please advise Hilary so she can end her excuse tour. ;-)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I have developed intense disdain for political correctness.

    This is why I now call a bigot a bigot; a disaffected, poorly educated, bigoted, superstitious yahoo an ardent Trump supporter; a can't-keep-up goober town a can't-keep-up goober town; and the average commenter at reason.com an no-count faux libertarian.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|5.18.18 @ 2:13PM|#
    "I have developed intense disdain for political correctness.
    This is why I now call a bigot a bigot; a disaffected, poorly educated, bigoted, superstitious yahoo an ardent Trump supporter; a can't-keep-up goober town a can't-keep-up goober town; and the average commenter at reason.com an no-count faux libertarian."

    Posted by resident bigot. Thanks, bigot, we never have enough of your idiocy!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    'Democrats and liberals are the real bigots.'

    Are you guys dumb enough to think that one works?

    I award Sevo today's Aaron Schlossberg Award For Distinguished Public Service To Right-Wing Bigotry.

    (Don't despair, clingers: The Jennifer Schulte Award is still available)

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|5.18.18 @ 5:54PM|#
    "'Democrats and liberals are the real bigots.'
    Are you guys dumb enough to think that one works?
    I award Sevo today's Aaron Schlossberg Award For Distinguished Public Service To Right-Wing Bigotry.
    (Don't despair, clingers: The Jennifer Schulte Award is still available)"

    Resident bigot hopes digging deeper will get him out of the hole.
    I hereby hand you "Dumbass of the Day" award. Don't despair, asshole; you'll do far worse yet.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • retiredfire||

    Artie,
    You keep using that word.
    It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

  • lap83||

    PC is awful because it implies that being considerate and treating people like, well, people is insufficient. Instead you must modify your language to appease particular "groups" even if you aren't talking to anyone in said "group". Because big brother could be listening? Yeah, that's a healthy form of communication

  • lap83||

    Even worse it has turned into an excuse for some people to be actual assholes. The PC police do not have to be held to any standards of decency

  • TotallyRealMerikanPatriot||

    -Cons: "People are too sensitive nowadays. They need to learn how to get a tougher skin."
    -Also cons: "Stop criticizing my president!!!" *sobs* "He's a good, honest, wholesome guy; believe me!!!"

    -Cons: "Christianity is under attack" *attends church in the open daylight, wears a massive crucifix, tells everyone they meet Merry Christmas*
    -Also cons: "The Muslim religion is taking over our streets and society!!!" *glances nervously over shoulders* "We cannot let this ideology take root in our country!!!"
    -Cons: "Hey, don't call me a bigot\Islamaphobe just because I think Islam is evil and Muslims should be barred from the country and practicing their religious freely. Geez!"

    -Cons: "I am tired of people calling us racists."
    -Also cons: "I don't see why all these lazy Nig...I mean, blacks, should expect their recently-gained civil rights to be protected and for society to respect and recognize their history of persecution and enslavement and for the country to understand that the history of racism\Jim Crow\segregation has had long and lasting impacts that persist even today. Geez, you don't think us white people have suffered too?"

  • Sevo||

    TotallyRealMerikanPatriot
    "I can make up all sorts of bullshit and post it here!!!"
    Fuck off.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The liberal-libertarian alliance has made America great by changing our society so that folks like Sevo no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public.

  • Sevo||

    "The liberal-libertarian alliance has made America great by changing our society so that folks like Sevo no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public."

    Do you post here to prove how stupid you can be, or is that just a benefit?

  • TotallyRealMerikanPatriot||

    -Cons: "I am totally tolerant of people whose lifestyle doesn't match mine. Each person should be able to live their life as they choose."
    -Also cons: "Same-sex marriage and homosexuality are an abomination to mankind! Why should my marriage be diminished because of their selfish need to be recognized as loving humans?! And don't get me started on transgender individuals who think they are entitled to decide their own direction in life and how the gender they want to live it as! That's just gross and unnatural."

    -Cons: "Libs are obsessed with identity politics. Why don't they talk about things that are important to me?"
    -Also cons: "I like 45. He's brave enough to talk to Christians and recognize the importance of us white people and understands gun owners and speaks up about the farmers and the miners and the police and the soldiers and the....."

  • Sevo||

    TotallyRealMerikanPatriot
    "I can make up all sorts of bullshit and post it here!!!"
    Fuck off.

  • TotallyRealMerikanPatriot||

    So sorry to offend you by pointing out the stark and rank hypocrisy that glares in the light of day, yet you seem not to notice or refuse to recognize.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "norms that are designed to increase the overall amount of positive communication"

    Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present, The Narrative!

  • Freelancelot||

    "[V]oters who weren't just anti-P.C. but outright racist may have picked Trump because they saw him as the more racist candidate."

    Only a j-hole could possibly believe this idiotic statement.

  • Freelancelot||

    "And this backfiring doesn't just occur for norms that are genuinely repressive to political freedom—it also occurs for norms that have a clearly good and noble aim."

    The Democrats don't have any of that "clearly good and noble" stuff going on in their hideous party.

    Trump's victory wasn't unlikely at all. He won because he's not a lawyer, a puppet of the Media, or a Democrat. Period.

    He isn't racist, either. Jackasses.

  • TotallyRealMerikanPatriot||

    Ahhh, libertarians (aka Republican Lite). So quick to decry the democratic party yet have such a hard time seeing and calling out the rot that exists on the right. I'm so glad they are here to self-righteously call themselves the party of reason, to demand they be seen as "different" and "unique" in the political spectrum, yet sit their fat asses squarely on the right-hand side of the see-saw.

  • Stephen Seligman||

    The thing that made me "flock" to Trump, wasn't even political correctness to be frankly honest. If I thought that Gary Johnson or some other Libertarian candidate could've gotten somewhere, I would've voted for him. Sadly (and I hate to say it, but it is what it is), it was ANYTHING BUT HILLARY. Trump is flawed in more ways than one, but Hillary with her proven track record of hogwash and predictability? I couldn't swallow the possibility of her winning, even if I could've sworn that it would happen

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, if the LP had just run a libertarian for President, instead of Johnson, there's a good chance I'd have used the LP to cast a protest vote. It's not like I LIKE Trump. He was way down my list of desirable candidates in the primaries, but everyone I'd liked more than him had to go and drop out of the race.

    But, no, they had to go and pick a candidate who rejects large parts of the LP platform. In the one year in recent memory when the LP was getting a little attention, too!

    At this rate, by the time one of the major parties does implode, the LP won't be any better.

  • USTAAD||

  • gphx||

    Hillary lost the moment she said 'Deplorable'.

    Trump won the moment he said 'You'd be in jail'.

  • vek||

    I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for GayJay because I'm in a state the Dems had sewed up anyway... But if I'd have been in a swing state I definitely would have voted for him. His anti PC stance is perhaps the thing I like the most about him. Even on things where I disagree I love the fact that he pretty much just says whatever he is thinking at the moment, no matter how offensive. That has its downsides too, but it also has upsides.

    Political correctness has truly destroyed the ability for people to have a rational conversation about a ton of topics that are extremely important. The fact is the world is not politically correct in objective reality. Different cultures are more or less good based on fairly objective measures. Some groups DO commit exponentially more crimes. Some groups make more money because they do the right things at higher rates than others. On and on. Yet we can't have honest conversations about the implications, which means we can't actually make the best policy decisions because they're "racist" or whatever.

    Fuck that shit. I'm just going to call a spade a spade going forward, I'm done with trying to be polite with some of this stuff.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online