In the middle of a live, heated debate on one of the morning programs, one man arguing against the absurdity of the rhetoric calling was engaged when he said "You have got to be out of your cotton pickin mind to equate the two" (detention centers to the Nazi concentration camps) to his opponent whom is a black American. Needless to say that the connotation was not lost on the man and he kept repeating "Really? Out of my 'cotton pickin mind?"
I realize the emotion connected to the phrase so I ask do you believe it is something to be outraged over?

It's remotely possible that the guy is just so folksy that the term "cotton pickin" is just an innocuous way of saying "dang" or "dadgum" to him. More likely he was waiting to say it to create some controversy.

Do I think it's something to get outraged over? I won't tell an African American how he ought react. I do remember though when the good Jesse Jackson called NYC Hymie Town and when Andrew Young called Mondale's aides smart ass white boys. I was insulted neither time. It just lets me know their real opinions, as if I didn't already know.

You have to take setting into consideration tho, don't you? Like: if you know what you're doing, like you say he probably did, and you say that to someone's face on live tv and its during a debate about emotionally-charged issues - that feels less like a general provocation and more like baring your teeth openly in active confrontation.

I'm impressed, naturally, that you read about Andrew Young slamming Mondale aides and didn't call out of work to nurse your rage. But what's the point of that anecdote? Do you think its a scenario roughly equivalent to one tiff mentioned - only you reacted better? If not, then what's your point?

Another way to put this - I"ve seen people shit on poor working-class people all my life, in print, online, in movies. Not a big deal.

But one time, long ago, my high-school girlfriend got accepted, from bumfuck maine, to Columbia, in NYC.

I followed her out there, nothing to my name. Went to a party in manhattan and someone there, comfortably new-yorked, sized me up and let loose the same poor-maine stuff I'd read without ever blinking an eye. It was different then. I got mad. And he, in retrospect, won. He held his ground. I looked foolish.

He had the power, he was in his element - it was up to me to hold my ground in the face of that. He didn't have to defend shit. You can see how it's a different thing. Words aren't just words, depending on where you're at.

I'm impressed, naturally, that you read about Andrew Young slamming Mondale aides and didn't call out of work to nurse your rage. But what's the point of that anecdote? Do you think its a scenario roughly equivalent to one tiff mentioned - only you reacted better? If not, then what's your point? — csalisbury

My point was (1) that I don't stand in the shoes of an African American so I won't begin to tell him how he ought to react, and (2) I've not found being outraged, offended, and insulted particularly useful in responding to morons, but, like you said, it's often difficult to control one's reactions to attacks. I also believe that some feign outrage as an effective tactic against outrageous conduct and it's just sort of an outrage game people play. Is that what happened in Tiff's example? I really don't know.

My point was (1) that I don't stand in the shoes of an African American so I won't begin to tell him how he ought to react, — Hanover

But that wasn't the question. The question was whether it is something to be outraged over, not whether it is something an African American should be outraged over, nor whether we should tell him how he ought to react.

If you're suggesting, as it seems, something along the lines that only an African American can rightly have an opinion on this, then I would find that ludicrous, and unlike your usual levelheaded judgement.

(2) I've not found being outraged, offended, and insulted particularly useful in responding to morons, but, like you said, it's often difficult to control one's reactions to attacks. I also believe that some feign outrage as an effective tactic against outrageous conduct and it's just sort of an outrage game people play. Is that what happened in Tiff's example? I really don't know. — Hanover

What's useful and what feels right or wrong are two separate things. I took it as an ethical question rather than a question about what would be practical.

Watching that clip caused some degree of outrage in me. I think that what he said was wrong. And even if he said it unthinkingly, and didn't mean to cause offence, I still don't think that that would get him off the hook. People should be held responsible for the stupid and offensive shit they say. Trump should be held responsible. Roseanne should be held responsible. This bloke on Fox News should be held responsible.

I, of course, am an exception. If the day ever comes when I say something stupid and offensive, blame Hanover.

If you're suggesting, as it seems, something along the lines that only an African American can rightly have an opinion on this, then I would find that ludicrous, and unlike your usual levelheaded judgement. — Sapientia

I'm not saying that only an African American can have an opinion on this. In fact, I provided my opinion for whatever it was worth. The question is whether it's right for someone to be outraged, and it'd be very difficult for me to say that a black person is wrong to be outraged at certain comments, as if I know what emotion he feels. It's sort of like if I joked about fucking your mother, I can't really say it'd be wrong for you to be outraged, although if you said the same of mine, I wouldn't be outraged. Maybe you're from a particularly close family and greatly religious and such comments are just not funny to you. I really don't know what you've been through, so I do stand by what I said when I say that it's hard for me to condemn a black guy for being insulted about something I really don't think much about.

Judging the legitimacy of your emotive response requires that I be in your head and weigh your response against what a reasonable person would do given your experience.

And stop accusing me of levelheadedness. It will do nothing other than to curb my more entertaining opinions.

Watching that clip caused some degree of outrage in me. I think that what he said was wrong. And even if he said it unthinkingly, and didn't mean to cause offence, I still don't think that that would get him off the hook. People should be held responsible for the stupid and offensive shit they say. Trump should be held responsible. Roseanne should be held responsible. This bloke on Fox News should be held responsible. — Sapientia

I actually take a different approach. I think we ought stop disposing of people who cross these boundaries we set. People should be allowed to be more crass and vulgar without being completely ostracized. These rules we impose so harshly have not made the world the better place they've intended to. It's made the world harsher, meaner, unforgiving, and critical. I'm not saying we can just let everything go without responding, but I don't think Roseanne needed to be thrown in the garbage for her comments. No one is better off for that.

Justice without mercy is revenge.

I actually take a different approach. I think we ought stop disposing of people who cross these boundaries we set. People should be allowed to be more crass and vulgar without being completely ostracized. — Hanover

I don't think Roseanne needed to be thrown in the garbage for her comments. No one is better off for that. — Hanover

No, not crass and vulgar, racist. Roseanne rightly got thrown in the garbage for being racist, just like we throw people in the garbage here for being racist.

And yes we are all better off that a spoiled rich person with a stupid TV show got her stupid TV show taken off her for spreading racist and Islamophobic hate. If she were on this site, she would have been banned instantly and we would have been similarly better off. It sends exactly the right message.

You need to ask yourself this question @Hanover, do you want more racism, Islamophobia, and anti-semitism in your society or less? Because presuming you want less you need a deterrent. Why you're conflating that with dirty jokes or being vulgar I have no idea as that's a completely separate issue. I doubt anyone here would have objected if Roseanne or the idiot on Fox News had made a dirty joke on air.

Getting tossed from here is a bit less than destroying an entire career.

Why not shoot her in the head? The answer is proportionality, a concept we both agree with. It's not if, but how much. I say it's too much.

Your distinction is valid, and I'm willing to allow more racist comments (not just crass) with less drastic penalties than you. If one buys into the argument that more severe penalties will offer a greater detterent, then the solution will always be the most Draconian penalty imaginable. Again, justice requires proportionality.

OK fine, I'm on mobile and moving around and maybe not reading you all that clearly. But getting back to Roseanne, she has (had?) a lot of fans and a lot of Twitter followers. Think about the net effect of her legitimizing racism to all those people. It would have had some influence, it would be very naive to think otherwise, and the ensuing extra racism more than likely caused pain and material loss down the line. It's not something we can trace exactly, but that's what needs to be balanced when considering a just punishment. And considering all the money and privilege she has, losing her TV show is hardly very severe. It might seem so to her or her supporters, but that's a deficiency of perspective as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what the alternative would be, allowing the show to go on would have made ABC look racist, and it would have been boycotted anyway, and some of her co-stars probably would have walked off. If you're going to say it would have been better to do nothing, that would have certainly resulted in an absence of justice. So, what would have been just in your view?

I'm not saying that only an African American can have an opinion on this. In fact, I provided my opinion for whatever it was worth. The question is whether it's right for someone to be outraged, and it'd be very difficult for me to say that a black person is wrong to be outraged at certain comments, as if I know what emotion he feels. It's sort of like if I joked about fucking your mother, I can't really say it'd be wrong for you to be outraged, although if you said the same of mine, I wouldn't be outraged. Maybe you're from a particularly close family and greatly religious and such comments are just not funny to you. I really don't know what you've been through, so I do stand by what I said when I say that it's hard for me to condemn a black guy for being insulted about something I really don't think much about. — Hanover

Are you suggesting that you don't know what emotions the black person in the video clip felt? The emotions he expressed or likely felt were apparent or can be quite easily inferred: shock and outrage. The same emotions were triggered in me just by watching, so you shouldn't even have to go as far as to place yourself in his shoes, which I am capable of doing to some extent, and to an extent sufficient to empathise, relate, understand, and share feelings. I don't know why you're suggesting it's different for you. I would question why that is.

Also, in your analogy, you said that it's something insulting which you really don't think much about. But, though I might not think about such things much from day to day, I certainly pick up on it in situations like the situation in the video. So, in that sense, you don't really need to think much about it, so long as you're not oblivious or insensitive to it when you witness it transpiring, or, in this case, a recording of it. Alarm bells should be ringing. And, in your conversation with Baden, I noticed that you spoke of proportionality; well, a lack or restraint of emotion, which you seem to be equating with being reasonable, might not be proportionate or just under the circumstances. Sometimes it's right to be outraged.

Judging the legitimacy of your emotive response requires that I be in your head and weigh your response against what a reasonable person would do given your experience. — Hanover

No, it doesn't necessarily require that you be in the other persons head. Sometimes it hits you straightaway, as it hit me when watching the video.

Two people can know that they can joke about fucking each others mother with very little chance of causing offence. But a situation more closely analogous to the video clip would be if someone had just come back from their mothers funeral, and that was fairly apparent in some way. This person would still be dressed in funeral attire. And some other person says something about fucking his mother. But that's still not quite a match, because it's too personal. What the guy in the video clip said was less personal and insults a considerably larger group of people. And it was said on television and will have been viewed by a massive number of people.

I actually take a different approach. I think we ought stop disposing of people who cross these boundaries we set. People should be allowed to be more crass and vulgar without being completely ostracized. These rules we impose so harshly have not made the world the better place they've intended to. It's made the world harsher, meaner, unforgiving, and critical. I'm not saying we can just let everything go without responding, but I don't think Roseanne needed to be thrown in the garbage for her comments. No one is better off for that.

Justice without mercy is revenge. — Hanover

I'm not suggesting that they should be thrown in the "garbage". I don't think that they should. But they should be held responsible, there should be consequences of some sort, and they should understand their wrongdoing and be remorseful and apologetic afterwards. Trump rarely admits wrongdoing or shows remorse or acts apologetically. Arguably, that might weaken his position as president, but I also think that that's just the way that he is, president or not. On that basis, he behaves worse than Roseanne has behaved recently, and, as a result, Roseanne comes across as a better person. Maybe, given her admission of wrongdoing and apologies, and if she learns from her mistake and doesn't repeat it, and given enough time, she should be granted new opportunities. That's at least a step in the right direction.

As for Trump though, he should be executed by firing squad, guillotined, or maybe even hanged, drawn and quartered. (In fact, based on a photo I've seen, I think he may have already been guillotined).

I also believe that some feign outrage as an effective tactic against outrageous conduct and it's just sort of an outrage game people play. Is that what happened in Tiff's example? I really don't know — Hanover

I'm glad you brought this up; I had the feeling this was the subtext.

There's a lot of disingenuous, weaponized outrage out there. But then there's also a lot of disingenuous "how could you ever think I was saying *that*??" indignation. When it's a game, its usually a game with two players.

In any case, the suspicion of local disingenuousness can metastasize, slowly and invisibly, frog in boiling water, into a full-blown cynical universal suspicion. Almost everyone is feigning outrage - and even if they aren't, and the authenticity of outrage is rhetorically bracketted, the 'outrage' is best addressed as an occasion for speaking of inauthentic outrage.

Same thing, but reversed, applies to the other side. 'I also believe that some feign emotional investment in the open marketplace of ideas as an effective tactic against pc moralizing and it's really just sort of 'only-saying-this as devil's advocate' game people play. Is this what [x] is doing? I really don't know [but regardless, that's what's important to focus on here]'

(I'm sure your familiar with one variant of this rhetorical move, a mirror of yours: if someone's accused of being racist, and then that case crumbles, well actually that's the point, because its important to recognize the *systemic* racism that the person is unwittingly the vessel for.)

A similar thing happens with religion. One side, snarky and less-holy-than-thou, smears publically what's of spiritual value to the other. Then the other side weaponizes their spirituality in retaliation. After a few decades, you're left with hollow accusations of ignorance and hypocrisy on the one hand, and amorality on the other.

But that shouldn't blind one to the fact that spiritual communities often provide real succor, both spiritual and material, for their members Or (from the other side) that people who don't fit that community's mold can be severely damaged by the judgments of the religious.

The spectacle of argument divorces both participants from what they're arguing about, and the cynical game-theory thing of 'he's bullshitting, so I have to bullshit back' allows each participant to justify their immersion in the spectacle to themselves.

Tldr; cotton-picking whatever is shitty, no matter how the other person reacts. Chastising an older generation for not understanding intersectionality or knowing gender pronouns v. 9.3 is bullshit. But the fact that stuff like the latter example exists, doesnt mean the former example should be tactfully and with plausible deniability waved-off.

But are we on the shore building intellectual sandcastles here or have we actually got our toes in the water yet? The meta-game is to be above it all and imagine we're making a contribution simply by analyzing how fucked up each side is. Meanwhile society as a whole drifts towards some -ism that we, for real ethical reasons, object to but don't or can't do anything about. And rhetoric is the currency of politics whether we like it or not. Martin Luther King knew that as well as Hitler. Bernie Sanders knows it as well as Trump. Maybe a beach and the sea isn't the right analogy. Maybe a Starbucks cafe next to a dirty canal. So, it's a nice clean philosophical Latte or toxic political sewage. With all the action happening in the canal. So, we can talk about inauthenticity and games but we can also look at where real change comes about or not. Selma was a tactic; it was rhetoric and images and it was misleading and it was deliberately misleading, and inauthentic in some sense if you like. And there was outrage. And it worked.

But even when you're in that political sewage and you're stirring up outrage because you need it just to stay afloat, I agree you can recognize some distinctions. Jordan Peterson is not Hitler, and that white woman on the Youtube vid who called the police on a little black girl who was selling water to make money to help her family afford a trip to Disneyland (what a story!) is not necessarily a racist bigot, might generally be a nice person in fact, and definitely doesn't deserve death threats. Trump and his merry band of fascist ghouls on the other hand deserve any form of outrage that can tactically undermine them by fair means or foul.

So, I don't know, where do we draw the line between not being immersed in the spectacle and not being involved in the fight? which is a very real and toxic one just by its nature.

"President Johnson:..I don't want to follow [Adolf] Hitler, but he had an idea—

King: Yeah.

President Johnson: —that if you just take a simple thing and repeat it often enough, even if it wasn't true, why, people'd accept it. Well, now, this is true, and if you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana, or South Carolina where—well, I think one the worst I ever heard of is the president of the school at Tuskegee [Institute], or the head of the Government Department there, or something, being denied the right to cast a vote, and if you just take that one illustration and get it on radio, and get it on television, and get it on . . . in the pulpits, and get it in the meetings, get it every place you can, pretty soon the fellow that didn't do anything but follow—drive a tractor, he'll say, "Well, that's not right, that's not fair."

King: Yes.

President Johnson: And then that will help us on what we're going to shove through in the end. "

LBJ to King (1965) http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/selma-files/selma-supplemental-materials.html

The tactic of weaponizing outrage at its finest.

It seems pretty outrageous to me. I don't think the comparison with "smart ass white men" works. White men don't have a history of slavery, discrimination affecting them negatively and oppression. In that context to then refer to a typical slave activity of the past seems inconsiderate at best and downright racist at worst.

It also makes me wonder how likely it would be for this person to refer to another white man, latino or asian as being "out of his cotton picking mind". I suspect the likelihood is pretty close to zero.

I'd add that for me the outrage is justified not just by what was said but by who said it. Outrage should be employed to a significant degree to the extent the offender is part of the prevalent power structure. If this were just a random white guy on the street, I'd say some opprobrium would be appropriate but then forget him, leave him alone, give him the benefit of the doubt if it can be reasonably applied, and certainly don't try to intimidate him through social media or whatever (same goes for that woman in the YouTube vid, just leave her alone now, she's had enough). But when said offender is an integral part of the political game and it's something as serious as potential racism, then take him to pieces. The morality of the response here relates not so much to the particular incident but to the bigger picture of fighting back against the legitimizing of the damaging discourse, which is much more a problem when the offender is in a position of status, which in itself implies legitimacy. You've got to explode that link of racism-legitmacy, and that takes outrage.

I think his target handled it well by the way. A degree of outrage but he maintained his dignity throughout. That's about the right balance.

I come from a place where nobody has ever picked cotton, and "cotton-picking..." is not a slur to my ears. But I see no good reason for somebody whose ancestors probably did pick cotton to take this as some sort of racial insult. It's agricultural work, hard work, yes--performed by slaves prior to 1865, but white sharecroppers also had to pick cotton. That poor blacks and poor whites both had to pick cotton after 1865 is just a fact of life. Picking cotton was no more degrading than any other kind of agricultural work which is performed by hand.

A lot of people are "primed to be outraged" about any expression or gesture that can be interpreted as racist, sexist, and various other "...ists". It's a complete and total waste of outrage on extraordinarily trivial causes. What people should be outraged about are the highly unsatisfactory material conditions which a good share of the population are forced to endure for the benefit of a small minority.

Outrage should be employed to a significant degree to the extent the offender is part of the prevalent power structure. — Baden

If one doesn't like the way society is organized, then let's save our outrage for the facts of "the prevalent power structure" rather than what some running dog lackey of the dominant class said.

If we are just worried about statements that have ambiguous racial overtones, but are content with the fact that the media (which distributed this errant comment) is a tool of the plutocracy, then again, the outrage is just a fart in a windstorm. Correcting people's speech is not going to change the power structure one whit.

The only war is the class war.

It does frustrate me that the bigger picture system is not something that allows outrage to function against itself. That's partly why Occupy failed. But I don't see that you've said much more than you have different priorities and your priorities are better. You've conceded the principle that outrage is a legitimate political weapon. I'm just for employing it more widely than you are and am less complacent about the results of not doing so.

A lot of people are "primed to be outraged" about any expression or gesture that can be interpreted as racist, sexist, and various other "...ists". It's a complete and total waste of outrage on extraordinarily trivial causes. What people should be outraged about are the highly unsatisfactory material conditions which a good share of the population are forced to endure for the benefit of a small minority. — Bitter Crank

I beg to differ that being outraged at a perceived racist comment is a trivial thing in the current political climate in the USA. Even if it were trivial, then the fact that you perceive other things as more important is an example of "whataboutism". We can be outraged by both and still differentiate between the two as being more or less important.

People only have so much attention span and so much emotional reserve. Spend it on tending to even only major slights against all the sensitive categories you are aware of, and you'll soon be either exhausted, or too wound up to think straight -- or think gayly forward either.

Worse, all the conflict over real or imagined slights (I'm not talking about deliberate and focused insults) makes it more difficult for people to cooperate. It's one thing if somebody calls me a 'homosexual' instead of 'gay'. That's not worth getting riled up about. They might even get away with calling me a cock sucker. Outrage? Nah.

That's partly why Occupy failed — Baden

Occupy..., bless them, were rebels with a cause but rebels without a plan.

But I don't see that you've said much more than you have different priorities and your priorities are better. You've conceded the principle that outrage is a legitimate political weapon. I'm just for employing it more widely than you are and am less complacent about the results of not doing so. — Baden

Right, mine are better. Absolutely.

Outrage is a useful motivator for change, but the shelf-life of outrage is relatively short. Direct it towards the most important targets. There are 7+ billion people, all of whom have prejudices of various kinds (except me and thee, and even thee has a couple of unfortunate hangups). New annoying people are being born faster than you can reform the old annoying people. The hamster wheel of outrage will wear you out.

Outrage is not going to cause the few hundred thousand people who have control of much of the world's wealth to give it up, either. But enlightening the masses about rich folks' role in everyone's lives is more doable than fussing over verbal etiquette.

The hamster wheel of outrage will wear you out. — Bitter Crank

Dunno, I feel like I've got enough outrage for a few more revolutions yet. ;)

Outrage should be employed to a significant degree to the extent the offender is part of the prevalent power structure. — Baden

This is a rationalization for a double standard and it breeds contempt. The right very much feels that they are being held to a much higher standard than the left, all under the specious argument that the left is properly fighting the man yet the right is the man. The right doesn't consider itself the one in power, but instead sees the power being in the hands of the left in terms of setting the agenda and determining what is proper conduct in public.

Roseanne Barr said what she said and is removed from civil society. Bill Maher, when told by a Senator he could help work the Senator's fields in Nebraska said, "Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n*****.” And after some feigned outrage just to be fair, Maher wakes up to work as usual. Suppose a former Trump advisor said that?

And moving from racism to crassness and anti-intellectualism, Trump says all the nonsense he says and the left is outraged, yet De Niro hijacks an awards show and says "Fuck Trump" and receives a standing ovation. How about if someone said "Fuck Obama" at the country music awards and everyone stood up and cheered? No big deal?

You can rationalize the double standard all you want, but what you end up doing is further polarizing. I'd even say that a large part of the right's embracing of Trump is his refusal to play by the left's rules of conduct. If you want to make sure that there are future Trumps, keep arguing that the right isn't allowed to be outraged and that the left has the right to speak more openly than the right. Next thing you know they'll elect another Trump to prove you wrong.

Even if it were trivial, then the fact that you perceive other things as more important is an example of "whataboutism". — Benkei

It's not this phantom "whataboutism". The material causes of misery among blacks, poor whites, hispanics, native Americans, et al grossly overwhelm the harm caused by someone saying "cotton picking". People get poor, stay poor, and sink deeper into poverty and suffering as a result of deliberate material arrangements kept in place for the convenience and benefit of the few.

Extreme disparities in various outcomes isn't a result of insults, racist phrases, and the like. Those are epiphenomena. The very real, present, and active causes are crude economic exploitation and/or economic exclusion because some populations no longer have "utility". The average black income in San Francisco is around $15,000 a year. The average educated population income is $82,000. Clearly, uneducated people (whatever racial group) are being effectively excluded from San Francisco--the cost of living there is too high, and there is no way the unskilled can make a reasonable income. The process of being excluded is inordinately stressful and unpleasant. That's one of the reasons why there are "excess deaths" among white, unskilled, working class men in the rust belt, or among other bottom-of-the-heap groups. Having been exploited in decades past, they are now being excluded. They are no longer economically relevant. Officially, "fuck 'em". Same thing for other groups.

That's partly why Occupy failed — Baden

Occupy failed because sleeping in a park doesn't do shit.

Roseanne Barr said what she said and is removed from civil society. Bill Maher, when told by a Senator he could help work the Senator's fields in Nebraska said, "Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n*****. And after some feigned outrage just to be fair, Maher wakes up to work as usual. Suppose a former Trump advisor said that?” — Hanover

I've heard this what-aboutism so many times and it's just boringly easy to refute. I mean do you really think comparing a person of black heritage to an ape with the express intent of belittling them is the same as accidentally referring to yourself, not a black person, as a house n**** as a joke? Really?

If you are reasonable enough to realize the answer is "No" then your double standard disappears. Having said that, I don't like Bill Maher and I don't like his comment, so maybe there should have been more objection, but again the degree is not the same (plus, Roseanne has a history of similar offensive statements against minorities and Bill Maher doesn't).

And moving from racism to crassness and anti-intellectualism, Trump says all the nonsense he says and the left is outraged, yet De Niro hijacks an awards show and says "Fuck Trump" and receives a standing ovation. How about if someone said "Fuck Obama" at the country music awards and everyone stood up and cheered? No big deal? — Hanover

That's two words vs what? we must be into the thousands with Trump at this point. Having said that, there is hypocrisy there in terms of degrading public discourse. I would much prefer if he had been more dignified. But people stood up and cheered because Trump deserved it, basically. After his continuous crass insults of just about everyone else who opposes him, it was probably cathartic to see him get one back. So, you can't generalize without taking into account the behaviour of the target. Obama, whatever you say about him, and I don't like him either, was no Trump when it came to how he expressed himself. And would you be upset, for example, if a Republican said "Fuck the Ayatollah". I mean, does this apply to every target? Are we not justified in saying "Fuck X" publicly ever? In this case I don't support it, I think it was counterproductive, but I wouldn't rule it out tout court as being a legitimate form of protest.

You can rationalize the double standard all you want — Hanover

I've refuted it not rationalized it. But feel free to try to rebut. I honestly don't think you have much on this one.

...but what you end up doing is further polarizing. I'd even say that a large part of the right's embracing of Trump is his refusal to play by the left's rules of conduct. If you want to make sure that there are future Trumps, keep arguing that the right isn't allowed to be outraged and that the left has the right to speak more openly than the right. Next thing you know they'll elect another Trump to prove you wrong. — Hanover

I didn't argue any of that, so...

And moving from racism to crassness and anti-intellectualism, Trump says all the nonsense he says and the left is outraged, yet De Niro hijacks an awards show and says "Fuck Trump" and receives a standing ovation. How about if someone said "Fuck Obama" at the country music awards and everyone stood up and cheered? No big deal? — Hanover

As to the first part, should we hold the President to the same standard as an actor? I think the answer is no. As a civil servant I'm held by a different standard as well. In particular, working for the ministry of finance, I cannot say or do just anything. I also receive additional checks on my tax returns to make sure they are correct to avoid the perception of a dual standard. All sorts of roles bring different standards of conduct.

Second, there's a qualitative difference between racist and mysogynistic comments Trump has made and the sort of crassness De Niro showed.

I do agree however that it's entirely likely the reactions to a Fuck Obama would have been different. On the other hand, no white president is going to get shit about his birth certificate either. So it seems the Left and the Right throw different types of insults at each other.