It seems to be the new norm, and I find it absolutely reprehensible and repugnant. I can only imagine the shock it would bring to the ladies, and I mean ladies, such as my grandmothers would have to such debauchery!

Society is sinking to new lows.

Sadly, I suppose it has become the norm, eld. I don't understand how it's okay for the left to spew nasty language and insults, but it's horrible and unforgivable if someone on the right does anything remotely similar.

I think people should clean their own house before complaining about the dirt in someone else's house.

I don't usually post to these kinds of threads, because I don't like arguing with anyone, but what's happening in this country is so heartbreaking that sometimes I feel like I have to speak up.

I don't know the context described, at all, but generally yes, I notice "Our society falling to the lowest common denominator"

you'd think people will become better and more enlightened when having so many sources of info, and chances to communicate-but the ones who indeed become better and more enlightened are the ones who'd srtive to be able to do so anyway and in any society.

Others somehow feel too soon that they're already better and more enlightened..:) They have huge exposure to information-but the way information comes to them is often skewed or given so poorly one wants to weep.. they often don't have a desire to know more or possess skills to see whether argument is valid. It's hard indeed when one doesn't know the subject. But one needs to acknowledge his own lack of knowledge to get such skills. One needs to realize it's important to know the context. I know when I don't know the context. They often won't have this doubt that sends one to either gather more information, weed through it, understand more-or at least hold their horses until they do.

There's not much personal responsibility to what people say. It's like they don't understand, that it's still a matter of honor, wherever said, internet or not, their own honor and honor of other people. I think internet brought these blurred boundaries with it. Duels died long time ago)) One doesn't risk people not shaking his hand anymore-because he won't meet them anyway, most likely. One is less embarrassed to "loose his face". I myself know how it's easy to really, really forget at some inner level, others are reading you. You understand that, logically-yet if you're naked, there won't be a boy in the crowd telling you that you are.

Ithat's my observations as of late

Trump supporters wore T-shirt’s at his rallys that bore the c-word. The reason you didn’t hear much about it was because the media didn’t want to put their cameras on it. I don’t condone vulgar language from anyone, but Ivanka’s posting that lovely professional photo of herself and her child bathed in a white glow when her father’s administration is separating children from their mothers provoked it. She pretends to be a champion of women’s causes. She had it coming.

Our lowest common denominator is the president. He talks like that. Why shouldn't everyone else?

(I prefer my insults without sexist baggage, though.)

"In my mind the word used may be one of the worse single words."

I wrote a sentence like that about 2 ago after Ted Nugent used the word to describe Hilliary Clinton. I still think it is an awful word. After that statement Ted Nugent was invited to the White House to be thanked by the current resident for his support. Yes, I blame 45 for normalizing what should not be normal or accepted.

I try to avoid people who use that kind of rhetoric and language, period. Competition for attention is the cause. Train wreck affect, it works on humans. Don't feed the beast.

I don't expect exemplary behavior from clowns. But I would like MUCH better from those who put themselves forward as leaders.

Yes, very crass on Samantha Bee’s part, but ... A few observations:

One, her choice of words is crude, and offensive to anyone who cares about decency, but not targeted at any vulnerable population. Crudeness doesn’t equal prejudice and contempt for the socially less powerful.

Two, many those who’re offended by her use of the word c^^* didn’t bat an eyelid when Ted Nugent used that same word against Hillary Rodham Clinton. The hypocrisy of those who didn’t come to HRC’s defense then or the defense of the long line of women that 45 vilifies with profanity is rich with irony.

Three, Barr’s description wasn’t just generic swear words like bas*#&$, b#$’h or c&$@, but a very specific way of calling Jarrett a sub-human mongrel. One can, if one is not watchful, let a generic curse word out, but Barr’s description wasn’t just a habitual swear word. And the descriptions that 45 uses aren’t either. (“Bleeding from her whatever”, for instance, is an intentional description, as crass or nonsensical as it may have been.)

wow. Blame TrIumph for the liberals nastiness. Good one. Libs are by far the nastiest, most vulgar, despicable and hypocritcal people ever. You honestly think if Triumph supporters had t shirts like that it wouldn't have been blasted all over the lib news and every where else? get real. they have no problem showing pussy hats and vagina costumes, people half naked and worse. It's fine for people to hold the severed head of Triumph, call his press secretary, daughter names, bully his son etc. and now it's okay for some so called comedienne to call his daughter a feckless c**t but Roseanne should be fired for her tweet? Libs have set new standards of low and you blame Triumph. Of course. No personal responsibility.

PS, since it's thought we are ALL descended from apes, where is the racism?????

I don’t love the C-word. I do think politicians can and should be held to a higher standard than comedians.

It's just a word. A crass word yes and no woman appreciates being called that. But Samantha Bee is angry and anger can make anyone say a word they might not normally use. It's too bad she had to 'go low' to get her point across but certain occupants (and I consider Ivanka an occupant at this point even if she doesn't actually reside there) only understand crassness because they're so adept at it themselves. And Ivanka's father's total and absolute silence on what Roseann said speaks volumes. Ivanka will be fine-she'll survive a dirty word. Hilary did.

I wonder where the leadership will emerge to guide us out of this mire. There is a lot of money and many easy jokes to be made from this mess. Standing up for civility, unity and a way forward will not be as facile or remunerative.

Michelle's "when they go low . . ." mantra left the white house with Michelle.

blfenton, well-said. Thank you.

While people may feel empowered to spout whatever pops into their little addle brained minds, that certainly doesn't relieve them of personal responsibility.

There are ways to get your point across with out wallowing in the gutters.

"When they go low . . ." needs to be in place as well as "think before you speak."

Sadly, we are all reacting just as frumpy is hoping we will. It’s just one of the many steps he is taking to break the democracy of this country so he can try to impress or maybe even follow in the steps of the dictators he so admires. It’s a detering technique, so while wasting our time bickering amongst ourselves, we are not focused the bigger issues and there are so many as a country that we need to know about

Instead of wasting our time insulting each other and fighting, we should “take the high road” instead and try to redirect the anger in a direction that can actually make a difference; force a change. How? By making sure the Repubican representatives from your area know how you feel and by calling them out for not holding this administration accountable. If everyone would take 30 minutes from their day once or twice a week to just do that, it would help. The other is to be sure to show up and vote during this next mid-term election. We do have a choice you know.

I agree. The other thing too is to get a candidate in place for the next election.

Ain't my new norm.

I guess the thing this woman did was make sure more people heard of her. 15 minutes of fame and all. I will not dignify her by typing her name (I don't dignify school shooters or wayward intentional van or HD pickup killing drivers by name either). I'd never heard of her before this incident, and I'm totally fine with that. She is welcome to drop off my radar ASAP.

Both odd wheels from both the left and right are quite copasetic with overtly nasty name calling if it doesn't affect their "side". And find ways to justify, saying... "Well, Mommy, he did it first!!!" Waw, waw, waw.

Society, as a whole, has become rather vile. Maybe, instead of blaming trump or Samantha bee or whatever other politician or entertainer, we need to look at ourselves. After all, we are the ones who elect them, watch them on TV, etc. As a whole, we need to say we've had enough and stop giving these people the spotlight, an elected office or anything else. All of them. They are just reflections of how low we, as a whole, have fallen. I think that they aren't the cause. They are the effect.

I very much agree with the previous poster about school shooters. We should refuse to watch all the TV news coverage about them. They do it to gain noteriety. The news people give them exactly what they want--a bunch of coverage--and we watch it. The news people don't care that they are giving these people exactly what they want (fame), which encourages the next shooting. They don't care about anything but ratings. "If it bleeds, it leads." But, most watch it. Maybe we should all stop.

My 2 cents:

Samantha Bee is a comic and has never shied away from crude language as part of her act. The difference, as I see it, is that she was 'punching up' - she doesn't 'punch down'.

Focussing on only the choice of language is a convenient way to deflect attention away from the message, and that is precisely what pundits and others on the political right have done repeatedly, because it works. How much easier is it to criticize her, someone in no position of political power, than to focus on the vulgarity of our country's top leader and others who are?

Yes, it does seem our culture in general has coarsened over the past decades. In some ways, though, IMO it's not such a bad thing, since there are a number of uncomfortable topics/issues that merit public discussion/debate and being 'nice' would only keep them suppressed and ignored.

Has there ever been studies saying that the reason school shooters shoot is because they might make the news?

If I live in Florida how would I ever be able to send my thoughts and prayers to victims in Texas without learning about it on the news?

Maddielee, the shooters themselves say they do it for the notariety. Recently released video from the Parkland shooter himself shows this. I have not and will not watch that video, but I have seen descriptions of it. I am sure there is variation and not all have that as a motive, but it is pretty clear it is a factor for some. I do agree that we should not publicize school shooters’ names—I recently saw a suggestion to number them and only refer to them by those numbers, which I think is a good idea though perhaps difficult to carry through.

Comedians have been using vulgar language for as long as I can remember. Just think of Richard Pryor. It’s not my thing, but I don’t see it as a sign of a deteriorating country.

Vulgar leadership is different in my opinion. If Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer had called Ivanka Trump a c#nt, then I think it would be reasonable to compare that to Trump’s using vulgar language. But Samantha B is a comedian and I’m not inclined to say that she should be held to the same standards as our elected officials should.

Vulgarity is also quite different from racism. Calling a political figure a c#nt or a d!ck (male, equivalent, right?) is very different from dehumanizing a person by referring to them as an ape or an animal. Dehumanizing human beings is the first step to atrocities such as slavery and genocide. It is how we convince ourselves that it is okay to do horrible things, because that “other” “person” is not really a person.

I think it is fair to consider who is talking and whether what they are saying is merely vulgar or is something much more insidious and much more damaging to our society.

I would hope that rather than focusing on the word she used, people would be talking about the missing 1500 children who won’t be having their picture taken with Mom anytime soon. Which was the whole point of calling Ivanka out, to call attention to the problem, not to the comedian. I’d rather be called the c word than have my child taken away from me. How can there be any comparison between the two behaviors??

Not going to comment on most of this b/c why bother. No one's opinion is changing about anything political any more no matter what happens.

But, regarding school shootings, this is a fascinating and frightening article:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

Also, recent NY Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/us/school-shootings-columbine.html) about school shooters competing w/ each other. Media coverage most absolutely plays a role, as killers themselves have said:

On Wednesday, the authorities in Florida released chilling cellphone video taken by the gunman in the Parkland school shooting. “I’m going to be the next school shooter of 2018,” he said. “My goal is at least 20 people, with an AR-15 and a couple tracer rounds.”

He continued: “It’s going to be a big event. When you see me on the news you’ll all know who I am.” He then was shown laughing, and singing the words, “You’re all going to die.”

I miss George Carlin.

eld6161 said:

"Whatever happen to Michelle's "When they go low.. Mantra? "

Hillary Clinton lost by following that advice.

No, I don't think HRC lost because she was more civil than T. She lost because she and her campaign people failed to listen to her husband- the man who wrote the book on turning red states blue.

PS I only chimed in with my opinion on this issue because the issue of civility was brought up, not because I want to rehash the election.

I think it is a sad commentary on our country that calling out racism is considered political.

I find it amusing that one side always laments the use of crude language when it was most recently used by someone on the other side, but never when it's used by one of their own. Someone once said -- can't remember who -- that politics is all about managing hypocrisy. I think they were right.

Reaching across the aisle would be to agree that it's not right when either side uses disgusting and hurtful language and to be willing to call out those on your own side as well as on the other.

That's where healing the divide lies -- but I sense the country will be torn apart more before that healing will begin.

This latest dust up is another good example of a current trend to 'match' offenses. When one side does something egregious, the other side usually rushes to find something that can be argued as equally egregious. It's a way to try to balance offenses if you will.

It's pretty offensive in and of itself and it also is a genius method of normalizing the abnormal. To have a sitting president insulting and belittling people for whom he was elected to serve is of course unprecedented-regardless of one's political leanings I think we can all agree to that.

Once the citizenry is occupied with matching wrong doing, it becomes that much easier to continue to normalize the abnormal and indeed to push farther into normalizing what was once, and should now be, always unacceptable.

A.k.a. false equivalency. Please note I used the terms 'punching up' and 'punching down' in my post above. I agree there is a big difference whether the target of the 'egregiousness' is someone w/ no power vs. someone w/ all, or most, of the power.

False equivalency is one way to rationalize and make oneself more comfortable about uncomfortable things.

Crude language =/=racism