Not Socially Acceptable vs Wrong
Separation of these two concepts is important in analysis of any public statement. It has become apparent to me that the media is confused and does not separate these two. Further, the media would like belief and expression to be the same, and it is socially unacceptable to express socially unacceptable views, but it is often correct to have them. This is monitoring of expression, not free speech. We do not have free speech, that is a myth. It is free as long as it agrees with the current socially acceptable cultural meme.
There is a big difference between legal, right, and socially acceptable limits of any statement, but that is a different topic.
It is not socially acceptable to call a gay person, a native, a black, a brown, a easterner what they are, but is it wrong? Being called what they are may be considered derogatory by them, but it is there culture that considers it to be derogatory, and I am not part of there culture.
We Albertans from and around the oil industry consider the term "Tar Sands" to be derogatory term, and stop listen at that point. Our oil sands industry is the basis of our economy. We live here. Other assholes can criticize, but you get to go home to your cushie life elsewhere. We live here among the oil sands, so you rich American Anti Oils Sands can f-off.
The natives want a inquire in to the missing aboriginal issue. It is a native cultural issue, so it is there problem. Logic dictates that predators exist. Predators "harvest" the ones that get there attention and that they can cut from the herd. It is a cultural issue that your native culture is unwilling to train it's youth of the facts of modern life and our modern society. We would all like to see the predators jailed, but we need to identify them, find witnesses willing to testify, and find proof before that can happen. That is the job of police, not to keep your people safe from the population, which the natives are part of.
So when we are speaking about these foot in mouth politicians, Trump comes to mind, we need to separate wrong from those things we do not want to hear. He may not be wrong that the US has a issue with the Mexico border, security in general, but he has just over stepped socially acceptable expression of the reality or at least his opinion of reality. The ultimate purpose of humanity is to prosper, and many see Canada and the US as better places than from where they came from. We are trying to keep up our standard of life, and we see that threatened, correctly, from the influx of non-law-abiding immigrants. There presence here is evidence of the "non-law-abiding" status. We may not like to here this expressed but it will be hard to demonstrate it as wrong.
Opinions are like ass-holes; everybody has at least one of. Oh well, what do I know?