about political culture. Welcome to the club; most thinking people are. Yet you also seem to be repeating emotional impressions rather than thinking about implications, which is exactly what I think is worst about US political culture.
Our politicians and leaders are expected to be more than perfect, yet we want to be allowed to make mistakes and be forgiven
Isn't that reasonable? Shouldn't we expect our leaders to be the best of us? I'm all for recognizing and accepting the existence of human frailty, but the people that are making decisions for me should be doing so because they have convinced me that they are more qualified -- eg., less frail -- than I am. Otherwise, what's the point in not having direct democracy?
We teach our children about values and what's important in life then neglect them while we work 80 hour weeks to chase the almighty dollar
Do you know people who do this, or is this a rant based on rumor and myth? Personally, I don't know *anyone* who fits this stereotype --- I know people who work 80 hour weeks, but most of them are single; I know parents who work 60-hour weeks because (a) they're committed to their job and (b) the other parent doesn't work; I know single parents who are desperately trying to raise their children and still pay for life. I don't know anyone who meets this stereotype, and as far as I can tell it's a chimera concocted both by anti-capitalist activists on the left and religious-values activists on the right who were, unusually, talking to each other.
We need to educate our children and we need to show our children with actions, not just with words.
Absolutely; words that aren't followed or paralleled by actions are empty and meaningless. But is the problem there with the lack of action, or with the choice of words? You are arguing, I think, that it is worse to pretend to be tolerant and not be than it is to not be tolerant in the first place ---- and I can agree with that to an extent. But words have power, both in their ability to move masses and in their ability to inflict pain on individuals; why is it wrong to say that, in the interest of creating a more pleasant society with less friction between individuals, it would be better if people didn't insult each other?
But in the end do we actually change what's in someones heart by forcing them to use different words, or do we teach them to be repressed humans who will eventually act out on society.
That's a good question. Ultimately, it's a question of symbols --- you can attack the symbol for what you don't like (hateful speech) more eaisly than you can attack that which is represented (hate), and it's easy to confuse the two. But we attack the symbol because it's easier to attack than the referent --- how do you convince someone not to hate? And the problem with the anti-PC movement, as I see it, is that it seems to be saying that it's wrong to oppose the underlying hate; rather than finding a way to address the referent, it appears that they would prefer to abandon the cause entirely.
If someone murders your family member because of the color of their skin how is that person any worse than someone who murders your family member for $100?
Consider it from this perspective: a town with people who murder you because of the color of your skin is a town that it's dangerous for anyone with colored skin to live in. The existence of that murder creates an atmosphere of fear which stifles *everyone* in the minority group. It creates a situation where the right of members of that minority to pursue happiness is degraded in comparison with that of members of the majority.
I understand the issue they are attempting to address, but it seems a rather backwards way of going about it.
Agreed. But: what's a better solution to the problem? Again, from what I can tell, those who dislike hate-crime laws would, in general, be just as happy leaving the problem unaddressed.
Why is that? Is the world really a better place because we use nicer words?
From the point of view of the people who would be on the recieiving end of hateful speech, the answer is *clearly* yes.