PDA

View Full Version : Jon Stewart says sorry.


sugarkang
06-23-2011, 05:45 PM
I've always loved Jon.

"That [conservative] movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt and to some extent, they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and to feel that they have been villified for those things. And I've been guilty of doing some of those things myself."

Last minute or so with Chris Wallace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo0gyC0oRxc).

Classy.

look
06-23-2011, 07:46 PM
I've always loved Jon.

"That [conservative] movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt and to some extent, they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and to feel that they have been villified for those things. And I've been guilty of doing some of those things myself."

Last minute or so with Chris Wallace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo0gyC0oRxc).

Classy.Love Stewart. I have to knock off points though when he said something to the effect that it's okay for the msm to be biased, as opposed to Fox, because Fox has more of an agenda, or somesuch

graz
06-23-2011, 07:55 PM
or somesuch

Can you be a dear and look that up for me.

look
06-23-2011, 08:21 PM
Can you be a dear and look that up for me.first few minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUdBp-cck)

eeeeeeeli
06-23-2011, 11:18 PM
I've always loved Jon.

"That [conservative] movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt and to some extent, they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and to feel that they have been villified for those things. And I've been guilty of doing some of those things myself."

Last minute or so with Chris Wallace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo0gyC0oRxc).

Classy.
This is true. But it is just as true that homophobia and racism has always largely come from the right. What those two terms mean exactly is going to get tricky, but lets just say there is a reason there aren't a ton of gays and minorities in the Republican party.

What I rarely hear is any acknowledgement of this problem on the right. The usual arguments are knee-jerk defensiveness: outright denial that it exists at all, anywhere, or pathetic false-equivalencies with no historical seriousness, like charges of reverse racism, whether only real racism is actually coming from the left via affirmative action, BET or Al Sharpton.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that conservatism as a whole is often unfairly tarnished - but there needs to be a complementary acknowledgement that conservatism naturally appeals to people who have a tendency towards majoritarian, white-supremacist, Christian nationalist apologetics. (I actually think it goes even deeper, but that's damning enough for now)

TwinSwords
06-23-2011, 11:38 PM
Andrew Sullivan:

Journalistic Integrity: Jon Stewart 1; Fox News 0

I have to say I thought Jon Stewart's correction on Fox News viewers was about as perfect as these things can be. He copped to his own hyperbole, and then provided a list of outright uncorrected untruths that Fox has propagated. The point here is not the untruths - although they are embarrassing for a news channel - but the lack of any correction.

Which is to say that a comedy channel has more dedication to accountability for factual errors than a putative news network. Which tells you almost everything you need to know.

TwinSwords
06-23-2011, 11:39 PM
Love Stewart.
Sure you do.

I have to knock off points though when he said something to the effect that it's okay for the msm to be biased, as opposed to Fox, because Fox has more of an agenda, or somesuch
Yeah, if he had said that, that would really be something. Nice try.

sugarkang
06-24-2011, 09:11 AM
This is true. But it is just as true that homophobia and racism has always largely come from the right. What those two terms mean exactly is going to get tricky, but lets just say there is a reason there aren't a ton of gays and minorities in the Republican party.

What I rarely hear is any acknowledgement of this problem on the right. The usual arguments are knee-jerk defensiveness:

I'll acknowledge it. I don't speak on behalf of the Republican party, but since I've been frequently lumped in with the WingNutZOMG, I'll give you my take on it.

First, an analogy. If an underprivileged child of an ethnic minority grows up to be poor, would a liberal blame the child? Of course not. Product of circumstances, one would say. So, let's apply it to a different case. If a corn-fed white kid from rural Real-America grows up not knowing a single non-white American and all he knows about "other" people is the racist jokes that people have thrown around since he was young, would it be surprising to find out that he's also a misinformed racist as an adult? Would you then blame this racist for having grown up in an environment that is homogeneous?

eeeeeeeli, we've had this discussion in another thread. If you're willing to absolve someone because she is a product of her environment, then wouldn't one have a duty to apply the theory equally to everyone? Now, does that mean that racism is absolved and that we should tolerate it? Of course not. But just like we take a census every decade, we need to re-evaluate how important racism is vis-a-vis other considerations. The argument, then, isn't that racism doesn't exist or that racism isn't a problem or that we can't / shouldn't do anything about it. The argument is how important is it in the context of all the other problems of 2011? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question, even if you can guess what my answer is. I don't pre-suppose a solution for all, even if I have a personal preference. My question to liberals is: have you done a thorough evaluation that isn't premised on 1964? Have you taken a new census?

However you come down on that question, now ask yourself where our society is headed. My theory is that concepts of "other" have everything to do with unfamiliarity and little to do with hate per se. That is, even if you're from Real-America and you have no actual non-Real-Americans near you, the internet will expose you to a whole different world out there. New transportation technologies, flying cars, automated self-driving cars will connect even the remotest, out-of-the-way regions to our pluralist metropolises. Even without politicization, racism seems on the way out. This is why I find bjkeefe's arguments about racism and xenophobia so unbelievably lazy and trite.

And then there's the soft bigotry of low expectations that liberals engage in. Frankly, I find the pre-supposition that whites are in a position to oppress others to be offensive. That means that whites control the destinies of everyone. You know, like, the master of everyone, who chooses at her whim whether to grant a human being a long and happy life or condemn him to victimhood.

Now, please don't mistake my position to be that there is no such thing as the tyranny of the majority. Obviously, such a thing exists. But, the liberal insists that that we haven't considered his perspective. Has he considered ours?

eeeeeeeli
06-24-2011, 09:31 AM
I'll acknowledge it. I don't speak on behalf of the Republican party, but since I've been frequently lumped in with the WingNutZOMG, I'll give you my take on it.

First, an analogy. If an underprivileged child of an ethnic minority grows up to be poor, would a liberal blame the child? Of course not. Product of circumstances, one would say. So, let's apply it to a different case. If a corn-fed white kid from rural Real-America grows up not knowing a single non-white American and all he knows about "other" people is the racist jokes that people have thrown around since he was young, would it be surprising to find out that he's also a misinformed racist as an adult? Would you then blame this racist for having grown up in an environment that is homogeneous?

eeeeeeeli, we've had this discussion in another thread. If you're willing to absolve someone because she is a product of her environment, then wouldn't one have a duty to apply the theory equally to everyone? Now, does that mean that racism is absolved and that we should tolerate it? Of course not. But just like we take a census every decade, we need to re-evaluate how important racism is vis-a-vis other considerations. The argument, then, isn't that racism doesn't exist or that racism isn't a problem or that we can't / shouldn't do anything about it. The argument is how important is it in the context of all the other problems of 2011? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question, even if you can guess what my answer is. I don't pre-suppose a solution for all, even if I have a personal preference. My question to liberals is: have you done a thorough evaluation that isn't premised on 1964? Have you taken a new census?

However you come down on that question, now ask yourself where our society is headed. My theory is that concepts of "other" have everything to do with unfamiliarity and little to do with hate per se. That is, even if you're from Real-America and you have no actual non-Real-Americans near you, the internet will expose you to a whole different world out there. New transportation technologies, flying cars, automated self-driving cars will connect even the remotest, out-of-the-way regions to our pluralist metropolises. Even without politicization, racism seems on the way out. This is why I find bjkeefe's arguments about racism and xenophobia so unbelievably lazy and trite.

And then there's the soft bigotry of low expectations that liberals engage in. Frankly, I find the pre-supposition that whites are in a position to oppress others to be offensive. That means that whites control the destinies of everyone. You know, like, the master of everyone, who chooses at her whim whether to grant a human being a long and happy life or condemn him to victimhood.

Now, please don't mistake my position to be that there is no such thing as the tyranny of the majority. Obviously, such a thing exists. But, the liberal insists that that we haven't considered his perspective. Has he considered ours?

I actually agree with pretty much all of that.

sugarkang
06-24-2011, 09:55 AM
I actually agree with pretty much all of that.

Well, fuck. That went better than expected. ;)

Don Zeko
06-24-2011, 11:34 AM
eeeeeeeli, we've had this discussion in another thread. If you're willing to absolve someone because she is a product of her environment, then wouldn't one have a duty to apply the theory equally to everyone? Now, does that mean that racism is absolved and that we should tolerate it? Of course not. But just like we take a census every decade, we need to re-evaluate how important racism is vis-a-vis other considerations. The argument, then, isn't that racism doesn't exist or that racism isn't a problem or that we can't / shouldn't do anything about it. The argument is how important is it in the context of all the other problems of 2011? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question, even if you can guess what my answer is. I don't pre-suppose a solution for all, even if I have a personal preference. My question to liberals is: have you done a thorough evaluation that isn't premised on 1964? Have you taken a new census?

However you come down on that question, now ask yourself where our society is headed. My theory is that concepts of "other" have everything to do with unfamiliarity and little to do with hate per se. That is, even if you're from Real-America and you have no actual non-Real-Americans near you, the internet will expose you to a whole different world out there. New transportation technologies, flying cars, automated self-driving cars will connect even the remotest, out-of-the-way regions to our pluralist metropolises. Even without politicization, racism seems on the way out. This is why I find bjkeefe's arguments about racism and xenophobia so unbelievably lazy and trite.

This strikes me as spectacularly naive. You've indicated in other threads that you live in California and primarily socialize with well-educated liberals, so perhaps you have a good excuse for this particular blind spot, but it is absolutely a blind spot. See, I live in North Carolina and have a lot of interactions, both through my extended family and through work, with white people who have a high school diploma or less to their name. The suggestion that racism isn't a significant factor in how many of them think, or that racism isn't connected to their Conservatism, is just plainly wrong. Now that doesn't mean that all or even most of the people i know around here have strong racist attitudes, or even that all or most Republicans around here to. But it is a real strain of thought, it is widespread, and it is manifested in policy. Take, for example, the plan to practically re-segregate (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0324/Busing-to-end-in-Wake-County-N.C.-Goodbye-school-diversity) schools in Wake County, or the various voter ID (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/north_carolina_dem_governor_vetoes_gop_voter-id_bi.php) bills being pushed by Republican state legislatures, or Newt Gingrich's support for a literacy test (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/05/14/200982/newt-gingrich-proposes-reviving-poll-tests-of-the-sort-outlawed-in-the-civil-rights-era/) voting requirement.

And I can't help but notice that, while you describe the post as discussing racism, homophobia, and the GOP, there's no actual discussion of homophobia here. I think that's because it's obvious that the GOP is happy to profit politically from homophobia whenever possible and that the only GOP interest groups that care about gay equality are stridently opposed to it.

And then there's the soft bigotry of low expectations that liberals engage in. Frankly, I find the pre-supposition that whites are in a position to oppress others to be offensive. That means that whites control the destinies of everyone. You know, like, the master of everyone, who chooses at her whim whether to grant a human being a long and happy life or condemn him to victimhood.

So...my belief that white people are sufficiently numerous and politically powerful to oppress black people is at least as bad as the bigotry that exists on the right? Are you aware of what you're saying here?

sugarkang
06-24-2011, 12:21 PM
The suggestion that racism isn't a significant factor in how many of them think, or that racism isn't connected to their Conservatism, is just plainly wrong.

I didn't say this. I hope this is clear for others. If it is not, someone else make a request for clarity.


And I can't help but notice that, while you describe the post as discussing racism, homophobia, and the GOP, there's no actual discussion of homophobia here.
My basic theory of "phobia" is that it derives from lack of familiarity. Therefore, homophobia would suffer the same fate as racism. I apologize that I was not clear.

So...my belief that white people are sufficiently numerous and politically powerful to oppress black people is at least as bad as the bigotry that exists on the right? Are you aware of what you're saying here?

I don't believe that I have to dignify this with a response. Again, if someone other than Don Zeko would like me to clarify, please say so.