Holier-than-thou virtue-signaling on the left?

[Yukaphile]

It's not even an outward thing. It's so subtle as to almost not be spotted. It's how we fall prey to our perceptions of history and our place in the world, whether as a collective or individuals. And it doesn't help when that itself is based on a lie.

[Yukaphile]

Here's what I consider PC. Chuck had to clarify in his "Watergate" episode he's not insisting that "Ivan's too stupid to use a Stargate!" Not that I think he was being deliberately PC, or I'm accusing him, mind you, but it was likely done to deflect future criticism, which you can never avoid. Haters gonna hate. He was right to do so. But in that sense, it's what PC is. Because Russia is a land of poverty, and that means lots of unhappy people, and less technological advancement, it is PC to kinda cut them some slack. In some ways. See what I mean? Any functional human being with common sense would know Russians are human, like us, and that their scientists could be as smart or stupid as any other culture out there. It's common sense!

[Yukaphile]

I see political correctness as a kind of a shield. If a black man commits a crime, then a lot of people would try to find extenuating circumstances, since we know for centuries our primarily white-established power structure had abused them. And we simplify the complicated cultures back then for the present, so that we might subtly wanna cut him some slack. Even if he's raped a child or murdered a woman or went on a shooting spree. The more extreme the crime is, the lesser the outliers will be. But it is still a phenomenon I've seen. Like what Chuck had said about a man winning a race who is struggling with a backpack, and when he finishes, give credit to the backpack. This is ironic because true equality demands you treat the black criminal in this case as any other.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I see political correctness as a kind of a shield. If a black man commits a crime, then a lot of people would try to find extenuating circumstances, since we know for centuries our primarily white-established power structure had abused them. And we simplify the complicated cultures back then for the present, so that we might subtly wanna cut him some slack. Even if he's raped a child or murdered a woman or went on a shooting spree. The more extreme the crime is, the lesser the outliers will be. But it is still a phenomenon I've seen. Like what Chuck had said about a man winning a race who is struggling with a backpack, and when he finishes, give credit to the backpack. This is ironic because true equality demands you treat the black criminal in this case as any other.

That's not political correctness. PC involves general expression that has demeaning aspects to a subject.

What you're talking about is an appeal to institutional racism. I'm not familiar with the more peculiar latin coinage.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

don't know if this is off topic but don't have the time to keep looking around. it seems that not many people blame liberal politicians for stuff they blame conservative ones for. like, some have said George Bush is a war criminal and maybe he is but why do they not say the same about Obma?

plus, doesn't everyone have the presumption of innocents until the moment they are convicted of a crime?the fact that it is not covered by free speech to call someone a war criminal, rapist, etc until a conviction would seem to tell me that is the case.

[CmdrKing]

*Narrator Voice* they did, in fact, accuse Obama of war crimes.

Anyways, the trouble with “guilty until proven innocent” in that specific context is the criminal acts are part of the public record. Every POTUS for generations has authorized actions that by accepted definitions are indeed war crimes. So rhetorically, when people say that it’s not necessarily an indictment of the man but of the society: we conduct war and “peacekeeping” in an immoral, even criminal manner and we need to fix it.

Though yes some people just wanna rag on Bush. Not unjustly, he opted into some wars of choice and his administration manufactured evidence to justify them, but it’s not really a useful way to think about the topic.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

*Narrator Voice* they did, in fact, accuse Obama of war crimes.

Anyways, the trouble with “guilty until proven innocent” in that specific context is the criminal acts are part of the public record. Every POTUS for generations has authorized actions that by accepted definitions are indeed war crimes. So rhetorically, when people say that it’s not necessarily an indictment of the man but of the society: we conduct war and “peacekeeping” in an immoral, even criminal manner and we need to fix it.

Though yes some people just wanna rag on Bush. Not unjustly, he opted into some wars of choice and his administration manufactured evidence to justify them, but it’s not really a useful way to think about the topic.

but no matter how public those crimes are, does anyone other then a judge or juror have the authority to say a certain individual is guilty? again, the fact that saying someone is guilty of a crime before a conviction is not covered by free speech would lead me to believe "no".

and I'm not trying to dismiss any horrible actions anyone may or may not have committed but I'm wondering if a lot of people are forgetting about the accused human rights or that maybe I am looking at those principals too dogmatically.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

*Narrator Voice* they did, in fact, accuse Obama of war crimes.

Anyways, the trouble with “guilty until proven innocent” in that specific context is the criminal acts are part of the public record. Every POTUS for generations has authorized actions that by accepted definitions are indeed war crimes. So rhetorically, when people say that it’s not necessarily an indictment of the man but of the society: we conduct war and “peacekeeping” in an immoral, even criminal manner and we need to fix it.

Though yes some people just wanna rag on Bush. Not unjustly, he opted into some wars of choice and his administration manufactured evidence to justify them, but it’s not really a useful way to think about the topic.

but no matter how public those crimes are, does anyone other then a judge or juror have the authority to say a certain individual is guilty? again, the fact that saying someone is guilty of a crime before a conviction is not covered by free speech would lead me to believe "no".

and I'm not trying to dismiss any horrible actions anyone may or may not have committed but I'm wondering if a lot of people are forgetting about the accused human rights or that maybe I am looking at those principals too dogmatically.

I feel that on a basic level of reasoning you can extend this to the following scenario. A guy in a stadium shoots another man. Now before the trial begins, everybody in the stadium and everyone that saw it on TV will say "guilty!" But they are in fact innocent until going through due process.

I mean in the context of how free speech is considered and how the construct of due process is administered, that's the same as what you're saying.

What's missing in our case to determine war crimes is expert examination obviously, and we can only assume such through 3rd party sources that are not very directly involved with us at the individual level. Ultimately though that's a distinct matter that does not preclude the first paragraph above necessarily. And don't get me wrong. I want more information before deciding, and I doubt that it is not at our fingertips so much. CMDR king gave enough cognizance of accountability upon Obama, and concluded that distinctifying the matters is in the wrong direction of her interests, but there is distinction nonetheless between the two administrations.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And in a television show we would definitely have that scenario unfold into a mind-programmed situation just to prove that someone should be innocent until proven guilty in that improbable but very plausible scenario given that MK Ultra was a thing.

[CmdrKing]

Oh, to be clear, for someone to be guilty *in the eyes of the law* and subject to all penalties thereof, yes, there should be a trial and that trial must be conducted on a presumption of innocence.

In a simple matter of what, factually, went on, the evidence available is sufficient to logically conclude what happened does meet the threshold for war crimes.

To put it another way, let’s borrow killing someone on camera in a public broadcast example. The US’ position would be equivalent to saying “yeah, we killed someone, but it wasn’t murder because we were working security at the time and it was important.” And then saying that they’re retired now so it’s the new guy’s problem anyway.