was one of the true catalysts of the 2016 election.  Trump disdains speech codes in a way that *at least* 50% of the country simply cannot process in real time as respectful or reasonable.  It was this full-throated embrace of irreverence which energized the underweb denizens to (first built, then) jump onto the Trump Train with an incessant stream of rebellious, witty, and hilarious memes and public stunts.

It is my opinion that if Trump does *nothing* for this country except pull us back from the PC precipice, it will have been a more lasting contribution than either of his immediate predecessors achieved--and that speaks volumes to the state of affairs in American politics :-(  And I frankly believe his *stated priorities* are as he says they are: he wants to fix American industry; he wants to correct destructive trade imbalances; he wants our allies to act like allies, and our enemies to be recognized as enemies.  These are good points of substance, so I (and a sufficient number of Americans necessary to hand him the reins of power) will forgive his often shocking style.

Do what works, and if that includes unorthodox and frankly offensive utterances on a regular basis...my suggestion is that we buckle up and hang on with both hands.  If it doesn't work, as far as I can see, we're no worse off than we were under GW Obama.

Honestly, if anyone here hasn't seen this epic compilation of Donald Trump's statements (over the last 35 years!!!!!) about China, trade, industry, leadership, and the American direction, you would do youself a solid by sitting down for a half hour and listening to the man's own words on the subject.  Reasonable people can argue that he chose less than ideal points of focus for his administration to address, but there is no reasonable argument to suggest that he does not care deeply about the issues he made the centerpieces of his campiagn.

Well, I was listing moments where Trump revealed himself to be a repugnant, immoral man, not actual policy disagreements. Maybe I shouldn’t have even bothered with that low-hanging fruit though; even people who voted for Trump generally concede that they don’t like him as a person. Who was it who said on this site recently, “why argue that you’re better than *someone or other* when you already know you’re a better person than the president of the United States?

But, in the interest of good fun… placing Jeff “good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions in charge of law and order, trying to control and then firing an FBI director, calling into question the validity of an election which he won and then creating a witch hunt commission to justify it, pulling out of the Paris climate accords, creating an environment where white supremacists feel emboldened, retaining half of his family as advisors like a banana republic despot, failing to divest himself of his financial holdings, using his office to promote his (and his daughter’s) brand, spending all his time golfing after spending years saying Obama golfed too much, pushing for the repeal of the ACA without a viable backup plan to keep people from literally dying, attempting to enact a tax agenda that only furthers the unhealthy gap between the haves and the have nots, spitefully ejecting transgendered people from the military and DACA kids from the country, fomenting islamophobia, needlessly antagonizing a newly nuclearized North Korea, savaging the EPA, deregulating everything he can find that has a regulation, taking an “Israel first, second, third, and forget the Palestinians” approach to peace in the middle east, and finally, most importantly, either colluding with the Russians (highly unlikely, although it’s looking steadily more likely that someone from his campaign will go down for trying to) or simply proving unwilling to investigate their meddling in an election, which poses a true existential threat to the country. The power of elections to mollify the masses goes down dramatically if no one believes those elections were fair and free.

… that’s six short of two dozen, but I imagine you get the picture. And those are just the things I think are empirically bad for the country/world, not things that purely offend my political leanings (although I will readily cede that fans of Reaganomics probably like his tax proposal better that I do, and etc). My point is that I left off thing like the travel ban, border wall, and Gorsuch, moves that I personally dislike but would not begrudge a peer from across the aisle for supporting.

As for microaggression culture, I happen to agree that it’s a losing issue for democrats, and a bad way to structure a society. However, I think it may be a little generous to say that this is why Trump won, or why the media thinks he’s unhinged. He won for a number of reasons, one being that he’s closer to the correct side of this issue than Clinton was, but even then there’s a difference between speaking your mind and being needlessly, classlessly, mercilessly offensive and spiteful in your public comments. People seem to like his candor, but dislike what he actually says. As for why people think he’s nuts, my personal theory is that most of the country still hasn’t realized what I’ve insisted from the beginning: on most issues, Trump is a political nihilist. He has opinions on immigration, trade, taxes, and regulations, but probably not much more than that. The rest is just things he’s adopted to further his political ends, and to great success. In his heart of hearts he’s just another New York democrat, and not a very principled on at that. It’s ironic that his base is convinced he speaks for them, when in reality I’m not sure he really speaks for anyone but himself. Also he’s a compulsive liar, and doggedly refuses to ever admit a lie, which leads to all manner of circus displays as he tries to navigate his own minefields.

The media looks at all of this and thinks, he’s either an idiot or he’s diagnosably divorced from reality. I think the third option is that he doesn’t much care about reality, or care when he contradicts himself. It certainly is something to watch, kind of like Anthony Vasquez was something to watch back in 2011.

Respectfully, I think a converstation around PC Culture and microagressions is incomplete without acknowledging privilege and white privilege specifically.  If I might share a quick anecdote...  

One of my best friends (we are both white guys) recently became a police officer.  It was his lifelong dream and obviously a great achievement.  I was and am extremely proud of my friend.  However, after he started the job I started to notice a few more off-color comments he made when we hung out.  Some mildly offensive jokes toward minorities and women, that sort of thing.  I guess what lots of people would call microagressions or just being politically incorrect.  But sometimes I would hear one and say "hey man, that's not cool!" or something like that, and he'd just laugh and tell me he didn't really mean it and don't be so sensitive.  "All cops have an inappropriate sense of humor, deal with it snowflake!"

But then I see reports and video of Michael Bennett being threatened with a gun to his head and harassed by police in Las Vegas just for being a black man in the vacinity of a reported shooting.  And I think back to my friend, and his friends on the police force, and their jokes, and how all these little comments might just slowly start to change the way they view the citizens they are supposed to protect, especially people of color.  Microagressions that very slowly and subconsciously manifest into physical agressions. 

I guess what I'm saying is your "microagression" or silly joke or "don't be senstitive buttercup" comment might feel like or even become a real agression to someone who looks different than you, prays differently than you, even uses a different bathroom than you do.

And so I'm curious to know if those who have a problem with our alleged microagression culture stop to consider their own privilege, or consider an alternative society where the rules of polite society were made by people who don't look like you?  Do you wonder what it would feel like if you heard a co-worker laugh about the words you use or your hairstyle or even the birthplace of the first president of your race, and then found yourself in handcuffs later that night b/c you "fit the description"?  As a white male I will never know how this really feels, but I bet I'd be pretty resentful if I was just told to not be so sensitive about it.

But the question remains; do you think white privilege plays a role in the so-called PC Culture debate?  And if so, does that shape how you feel about those who are the targets of the microagressions?  

Also not sure where you're getting the argument that if a petite Asian woman disagrees with you then she's a Nazi?!  Certainly nothing I said is remotely close to that.  

But one thing I did want to point out is that the article referenced "militant progressives". I don't know what group this refers to.  I'll say that I've not seen any BLM activists open carrying assault rifles at political rallys, but I HAVE seen neo-Nazis doing that.  Check me on that if you've seen differently.  

And yes it is your blog so you do get edit rights, good on you! :)  And lest you think I am trolling, I do think this is a great site for your coverage of the Mariners.  Probably THE BEST.  I read it everyday.  I do try to avoid the political talk b/c I think I'm pretty far adrift of most here but maybe I'm wrong about that.  

And I did mean "does it play a role" but I can leave it here.  Thank you for engaging and keep up the good work! Sincerely. 

Certainly something I try to remember often w/r/t issues I feel strongly about (union rights, health care) vs. issues people in other parts of the world face like "where will I find food and clean water today".  All just b/c I won the birth lottery.  Helps put it in perspective when the rage meter starts to go up a bit. :)  

Thanks Jemanji.  

I'm stepping way out of my comfort zone here, because I know I am not a political animal who lives and breathes it. That, and I know my limitations. I'm not the sharpest crayola in the box when it comes to this stuff. And in truth, this will not address politics at all, but something that occurs to me while listening to folks talk about stuff. The only mention of our current president is this; please, please, please if there is a God, take away his phone or shut down his Twitter account. 

I'm not going to mention party affiliation or liberal or conservative, because it spans the spectrum - although I do think the vast majority of what I'll be mentioning resides on one end.

I was raised to believe that even though I may absolutely disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it. I was also taught that your rights end where the other guy's nose begins. Meaning the exercising of your rights goes right up until it denies the rights of others; you, as an individual, don't have the right to do that. There is a very vocal segmant of the population who will say any dang thing they want to and wrap it up in freedom of speech, and if you don't like it, too bad. Which is fine. That's what Freedom of Speech is. BUT... In the very same breath, those same people will screech at max volume if I say something with which they disagree, and I get shouted down, threatened, and my rights denied. You can't have it both ways. If you want to have the freedom to say what you want, then that same applies to others; you don't get to shut them down just because you disagree with them. They have to put up with you, you have to put up with them. The media is no help here, and in fact makes it worse. Remember, "if it bleeds, it leads." They like confrontation; it means ratings.

The 80% of us in the middle of things have allowed the screaming 10% on each end to monopolize things for far too long. Until we can get to the point where people are actually talking and reasoning like adults instead of shouting like little children who think their favorite toy has been taken from them, until we are having substanive, constructive conversations about things instead of screaming at each other and demanding the other must be silenced, until we come to the table wanting to get things done instead of wanting to hear our own voice and our agenda be the only thing heard, we'll get nowhere. 

Great discussion guys!

1.  America's pending collapse, due to the polarization of politics and screechy level of dissent, is overstated. It isn't happening!  This is worse than 1968?  Really?  Yet by '76 we were a calm cultured nation celebrating a nice bicentennia, without riot or rancor.  I was in Eugene in '76, even it was calm!  Two years before we had nearly impeached a president!  It seems worse now due to the 24/7 nature of broadcast news and internet stupidity, but it really isn't.  AntiFa?  Neo-Nazis?  Mostly idiot 24 year old boys with too much time and attention!  A calm voice would help.  Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him?  

2.  Trump has essentially followed his campaign pledges.  He is neither an immoral man nor evil!  His tweeting is silly and does his presidency little good, but that makes him about like the rest of the tweet/Facebook addicts in the nation.  Ending DACA is not immoral and likely to the letter of the Constitution.  The ACA is collapsing at warp speed.  Don't blame him for that or for congressional Republican's failure to act.  His tax proposals for a flatter simpler system are supported by a majority of the American people.  His "Islamophobic" policies (travel ban) were not bans on Muslims (Indonesian Muslims, the most numerous in the world, had no problem traveling to the US)  nor destructive.  The Paris Accords produced no climatic result for decades, yetbthe US paid the huge price relatively quickly.  How does he "antagonize" a rogue loony toon country testing nukes Willy Nilly and firing ballistic missiles over our allies' air space?  And that's Trump's fault?  Hey, I didn't bore for him,  and goodness knows I recognize his multitude of faults, but his policies are generally well within mainstream view.  Remembering, if you will, that Bernie, Nancy Pelosi, and the antifa thugs are no more mainstream than he is. 

3.  There is a political discourse that works in this nation, look at the states. It works generally well there.   The national problem is that congress won't legislate in a manner that seeks other-side-of-the-aisle support.  This president and the last one give lip service to the idea, but really aren't inclined to do the hard legislative word to get folks on board.  But mostly the problem lies with a "continuing resolution" congressional attitude.  

4.  I am a lifelong Republican.  Yet recently I  have written a letter of support, for a group of governmental entities, to our state representative, a democrat.  The idea was mine.  I have emceed an event, on the stage with one of Oregon's US Senators, a democrat and a friend of mine.  I recently met with our governor, a democrat and friend, about a timber plan that I thought made little sense.  I am now cautiously supportiive, becUse of that discourse.  I even took our US Representative fly fishing, he too is a democrat and a friend.  I am not a lone wolf folks.  People ARE willing to work with the other party, to shake hands, even to agree to disagree and move on.  A lillte statesmanship in congress and less infantile tweeting from the White House would help!  But if we want a polite, rational, reasoned discourse (antifa does not) then we should exhibit it ourselves.  We do here, of course, thanks to the good Doc!  SSI should bequired reading around the nation.  Not that we would change minds, but we might set an example.

I oppose unlimited undocumented(illegal) immigration.  I am the furthest thing from a racist, stop calling me one.

if you don't like the speaker on campus, don't go.  Simple enough.

Name calling is no strategy.  It is 7th grade stuff.

But you guys know all that! 

Remnd the others, will you please.