Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3508)

bjkeefe 07-23-2009 01:22 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121465)
It should be a prerequisite for the Supreme Court that you don't make racist comments like "Latinas are wiser than X."

Always nice to see a wingnut advocating censorship.

Especially one whom I'm certain still holds grudges about Bork and Sessions.

graz 07-23-2009 01:29 PM

Re: Colbert
 
Satire cuts through the crap faster than anything.
And Colbert is a master.

Salt 07-23-2009 02:56 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quoting BJ: Always nice to see a wingnut advocating censorship.

You can call me a wingnut if you want, but I'm not advocating censorship. When I say "prerequisite" I mean in terms of what is politically acceptable, not what is legally acceptable. Sorry to disappoint you BJ, but censorship is another area where we disagree. I utterly reject the fairness doctrine.

bjkeefe 07-23-2009 06:17 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121506)
Quoting BJ: Always nice to see a wingnut advocating censorship.

You can call me a wingnut if you want, but I'm not advocating censorship.

Sure you are. You're saying someone should be ineligible for a given job if he or she has ever said particular words that you don't like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121506)
When I say "prerequisite" I mean in terms of what is politically acceptable, not what is legally acceptable.

I don't see this distinction as anything but a bit of back-pedaling once I called this ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121465)
It should be a prerequisite for the Supreme Court that you don't make racist comments like "Latinas are wiser than X."


... for what it is. (I'll leave aside how badly you've misrepresented the line [added: I presume you're referring to something vaguely similar that Judge Sotomayor once said], let alone how you've ignored the context in which it was said, because I've wasted too much time with you in the past trying to get you to acknowledge simple facts.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121506)
Sorry to disappoint you BJ, but censorship is another area where we disagree. I utterly reject the fairness doctrine.

First, my estimation of you is already at rock-bottom, so it is not possible for you to disappoint me. Therefore, no need to apologize for this, at least.

Second, this is a non sequitur, or something else even more nonsensical. For you to claim that we disagree about censorship, you would have to admit you favor it (after just having said you oppose it), since my initial response was to take you to task for advocating censorship.

Third, you haven't a clue where I stand on the Fairness Doctrine, so you might want to do a little reading before you shoot your mouth off making claims about where I stand. For example:

Quote:

I buy the argument that there are enough outlets for differing views these days that we don't need to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Also, I'm convinced that it would be a waste of money and a source of way too much squabbling and hot air. Even if I thought it was a good idea in principle, the reality of today's political arena is that it would almost certainly be doomed to failure in implementation.
For example:

Quote:

So, to return to my original point, I'd like to hear more about the NN debate, and I'd like in particular to hear a defense of this FD worry. I will state up front that I have long thought that the Fairness Doctrine is as dead as anything can be. Apart from indulging in a fantasy of finding a club with which to smite Rush Limbaugh, even most liberals wouldn't want the FD to come back, and in any case, virtually no on the left thinks it has any chance to.

I believe the FD's "possible return" exists only as a bogeyman that is trotted out to motivate the conservative base for other reasons. Tell me why I'm wrong.
More here, if you want it.

None of the above is hard to find (e.g., or even, e.g.)

Salt 07-23-2009 06:32 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quoting BJ: You're saying someone should be ineligible for a given job is he or she has ever said particular words that you don't like.
Quoting Salt: When I say "prerequisite" I mean in terms of what is politically acceptable, not what is legally acceptable.
Quoting BJ: I don't see this distinction as anything but a bit of back-pedaling once I called this ...

I know it's hard for you liberals to understand with your party leadership and policy agendas 100% comprised of lawyers (okay, some of the lawyers are community-activists as well, but they're still lawyers and mostly married to lawyers . . . so much for diversity). Anyway, to me politics is about choices between candidates and philosophies of government and ultimately policies. To non-lawyers this does not mean you have to pass law proscribing your political opposition. Totalitarian-minded liberals like you, Lenin, Mao, etc. think it does, but it doesn't.

bjkeefe 07-23-2009 07:05 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121573)
I know it's hard for you liberals ...Totalitarian-minded liberals like you, Lenin, Mao, etc. ...

Given how stupid you just looked attempting to project onto me some imagined belief about "liberals" and the Fairness Doctrine, one might think you would have hesitated to try the exact same nonsense again.

You begin to see ... well, no, not you, probably, but others will begin to see why I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121572)
First, my estimation of you is already at rock-bottom, so it is not possible for you to disappoint me.

You should spend less time in your wingnut echo chambers and more time trying to find out what actual people actually think, in particular, those to whom you're trying to ascribe beliefs for the purpose of debate. If you ever do this, I might be interested in talking to you further. But not until then. You're boringly predictable at this point -- you're just a little hate-filled bigot whose views of anyone not exactly like you are nothing more than fantasies sold to you by amoral people who make their livings scaring the weakly sphinctered.

Salt 07-23-2009 07:46 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quoting BJ:
You should spend less time in your wingnut echo chambers and more time trying to find out what actual people actually think, in particular, those to whom you're trying to ascribe beliefs for the purpose of debate. If you ever do this, I might be interested in talking to you further. But not until then. You're boringly predictable at this point -- you're just a little hate-filled bigot whose views of anyone not exactly like you are nothing more than fantasies sold to you by amoral people who make their livings scaring the weakly sphinctered.
What are you auditioning for Maddow, or something?

bjkeefe 07-23-2009 08:02 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121598)
Quoting BJ:
You should spend less time in your wingnut echo chambers and more time trying to find out what actual people actually think, in particular, those to whom you're trying to ascribe beliefs for the purpose of debate. If you ever do this, I might be interested in talking to you further. But not until then. You're boringly predictable at this point -- you're just a little hate-filled bigot whose views of anyone not exactly like you are nothing more than fantasies sold to you by amoral people who make their livings scaring the weakly sphinctered.
What are you auditioning for Maddow, or something?

Appreciate the compliment, but no. Just stating my own views.

Salt 07-23-2009 08:19 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quoting BJ:Quoting Salt: Quoting BJ:
You should spend less time in your wingnut echo chambers and more time trying to find out what actual people actually think, in particular, those to whom you're trying to ascribe beliefs for the purpose of debate. If you ever do this, I might be interested in talking to you further. But not until then. You're boringly predictable at this point -- you're just a little hate-filled bigot whose views of anyone not exactly like you are nothing more than fantasies sold to you by amoral people who make their livings scaring the weakly sphinctered.
What are you auditioning for Maddow, or something?
Appreciate the compliment, but no. Just stating my own views.

Glad to hear they are your own views, because your constant clustering of words like fantasies, sphincter and that old chesnnut "wanking", were beginning to make me think Bill Clinton's id had somehow taken over your keyboard. You are this forum's undeniable expert (intentional or not) on Freud, but I think you could probably teach the good doctor a thing or two on hatred and loathing (especially self-loathing). Good luck with the therapy. I'm sure a few more years will sort you right out.

bjkeefe 07-23-2009 10:07 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121607)
Glad to hear they are your own views, because your constant clustering of words like fantasies, sphincter and that old chesnnut "wanking", were beginning to make me think Bill Clinton's id had somehow taken over your keyboard. You are this forum's undeniable expert (intentional or not) on Freud, but I think you could probably teach the good doctor a thing or two on hatred and loathing (especially self-loathing). Good luck with the therapy. I'm sure a few more years will sort you right out.

As usual, Salt, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I'd tell you why I use them but I think it might be more useful for you to figure it out on your own. For real, I mean, and not just comforting yourself by parroting some half-remembered pop psych phrases that you picked up somewhere.

On the other hand, if your understanding of psychology is as undeveloped as are your awareness of political realities and your views on race, we're probably looking at a couple of decades' wait at least.

Well, best get started.

Salt 07-24-2009 12:36 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quoting BJ: As usual, Salt, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Perhaps you haven't yet twisted your psyche as fully as you've twisted reality to fit your ideology, but I think your vulgarity is a sign of your frustration. Unfortunately, it's a typical liberal trait, so no points for originality.

bjkeefe 07-24-2009 12:44 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 121666)
... but I think your vulgarity is a sign of your frustration. Unfortunately, it's a typical liberal trait, so no points for originality.

Looks like yet another instance of Perlstein's Law.

claymisher 07-24-2009 02:21 AM

Re: Colbert
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 121481)
Satire cuts through the crap faster than anything.
And Colbert is a master.

Yeah, the bit with the band-aids was brilliant. It really captured the white_male=normal, everybody_else=other dynamic.

bjkeefe 07-24-2009 02:23 AM

Re: Colbert
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 121686)
Yeah, the bit with the band-aids was brilliant. It really captured the white_male=normal, everybody_else=other dynamic.

Meant to tell you how much I enjoyed that. Thanks for the link.

4815162342 07-24-2009 01:47 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
I would draw the distinction as follows:

1. Whether or not a statement is racist.
2. How bad it is to have made that statement.

Taking a utilitarian point of view, if someone makes a racist statement in their closet, it may be bad to some extent, if only for that person, but it seems to have no actual effect on the world. In that case it is not particularly objectionable. Thus, a public statement of racism is worse than a private one, even though they are both instances of racism.

A second contributing factor for a public statement of racism is the context. I would argue that a statement of racism against a minority has a greater effect than a statement of racism against a majority, because the majority is more likely to sympathize with the racism against the minority, rather than against themselves. On the other hand, the minority is more likely to be sympathetic to the racism against the majority, but by sheer numbers this effect is not as bad. Furthermore, democracies naturally favor majorities, so there is less need for concern with protecting the majority, it almost takes care of itself. A key focus in a democracy needs to be minority rights, otherwise a "tyranny of the majority" can come into being. This argument could also be extended to a disenfranchised group which may not be a minority, in apartheid South Africa, for example.

This is why I object less to Sotomayor's comment than I would a similar comment by a white male.

popcorn_karate 07-24-2009 02:36 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
well put. nice post.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.