Mind you, the thought of a wedding with the Romneys on one side of the aisle and Kanye and the Kardashians on the other is comedy GOLD.
lance strongarm is right, an insensitive comment is an insensitive comment period. If you want to sit there and tease apart the context great, doesn’t change the comment.
The kid in question is going to have MANY intentional and accidental awkward moments growing up due his family situation, but these adults on the show felt he needed an extra early dose right? What assholes.
You do realize that the majority of people arguing with lance strongarm aren’t arguing that MHP was CORRECT in doing what she did (in fact, a lot of us think it was a pretty stupid stunt), but that she doesn’t deserve FIRING for it, given that it was one mistake of a racist nature in a long career. Most of us certainly think the segment shouldn’t have been proposed, greenlighted, produced or aired, on grounds of “dumb idea” and “self-injury”. Despite the direction that the argument with lance strongarm took (into the territory of degrees of racism and social context), no one is claiming that this wasn’t racist.
Of course it proves my point.
Jeez, you just can’t let go, can you?
Sorry, but racism is not an acceptable response to racism. That’s justifying it.
Your mistake is rationalizing immoral acts by claiming that this matters.
But it would be okay for him to shoot you in the face in the same situation. So that analogy fails.
Arguing that it’s okay for blacks to be racist but not whites is like saying its okay for you to shoot him in the face, but wrong for him to wage war on you.
No it’s not.
Revenge on people who are in the same group as those who committed an injustice is not a justification for immoral acts.
How the hell does racism mitigate racism?
False dilemma. We can and do handle racism without using more racism. We don’t have to fix racism by allowing more - I’d say that’s counterproductive.
Humor is incredibly complex, and is about much more than simply stating an opinion. Humor can be used to enlighten, or satirize, or actually ease tensions. I’m not talking specifically about this incident or about comedy, I’m talking about the basic idea that blacks have license to be racist in any situation.
So if I beat you up and a court uses moral relativism to say it’s okay, you wouldn’t complain?
No, it’s sad. It’s pathetic rationalization. It’s racism.
Here’s the massive problem with this “if you hit my brother I can hit you” analogy.
The accurate analogy to racism would be this: somebody hit you or your brother, and now you think it’s justified to hit that person’s brother for it.
THAT is what racism is - punishing innocent people for the actiions of others, just because they are in the same group. It cannot be rationally defended, because it is logically wrong.
You have no right to hold white people as a group, or any particular white person, for the crimes of other white people. Period. It’s a terribly immoral thing to do, and it’s just as bad as doing it to black people.
You guys have spent alot of time talking yourself into rationalizing racism and ignoring simple truths. That’s scary.
Correct - they’re claiming that it was racist, but that’s perfectly okay because of past racism.
They’d be happy in a place like the Balkans, where they could pursue blood feuds over past injustices at will.
What as load of crap.
Wrong is wrong.
To be fair, what I think you’re not seeing is that this conversation isn’t about simply “a black comedian making fun of the child of a white politician.” (Or comedy, which I already explained is different). It moved on to the idea that blacks have carte blanche to be racist against whites. If that’s true, it’s true regardless of the act of racism, i.e. not just poking fun, but serious, vicious comments or even acts of violence. If “nuance” and “context” or payback justify black racism against whites, it means blacks can lynch whites. If you are honest, and say that this is obviously false, then you can’t rely on your “nuance” thing any more.
I’d say I’m 5% debating skills and 95% persistence.
Well, Kanye West did interrupt Taylor Swift during that award ceremony. She’s pretty white.
Yes! Now I, as a white person, can interrupt any black person in an awards ceremony and it’s okay, because it’s context and nuance.
Agree to disagree
Context always matters. Sometimes it doesn’t matter that much, but usually it does. MHP didn’t conceive of that panel and choose that picture in a vacuum so neither should we assume her panelists’ comments were made in a vacuum
It doesn’t fail. If its ok for him to shoot me in a similar combat situation, then we are BOTH justified.
In this scenario, he has already waged was on me, continues to do so, and should expect that I don’t take it lying down. You keep on forgetting that there is institutionalized racism now.
It is if the immoral acts are slight and easily ignored. Those were just comments. MHP and her panel didn’t go around changing laws to deny the Romneys their vote, take away their social safety net, or throw them in jail for minor offenses. They laughed at a picture, which, while stupid and wrong especially when directed at a child, is minor and forgivable
Your thinking is that black on white racism such as using certain words or saying certain things will spur racism from whites. My contention is that whites deserve some minor punishment for their past and the current institutionalized racism and by seeing how it affects themselves and how they don’t like it, change from within.
So how would you handle MHP and how would you handle the generally used terms by blacks that denigrate whites while still fighting against existing and much more significant racism institutionalized to marginalize blacks and other minorities? Your answer has to take all of that into account, I’m just going to ignore your answer if its something like “Tell black people they shouldn’t use those words against white” without taking into account how to stop white people from doing the same thing
You put words into my mouth. Blacks don’t have a license to be racist in ANY situation. They have a license to do so in SOME situations when their response meets some criteria, such as: its minor, its in response to something else, etc. Not all responses are the same, which is what you don’t seem to understand
Hoo boy, you want to debate moral relativism? Sure, why not?
First of all, a moral philosophy such as relativism that I follow or agree with is different than a courtroom with laws that must be followed. Generally, but not always, the established rules and laws pertaining to the law are either good according to me, or good pragmatically.
Second, moral relativism has been used in courts in a sense that jury nullification exists. Sure, it was used in perhaps odious ways in the past, but not always. And I would not be against it being used for purposes I agree with now.
Third, established laws do get thrown out, relativism is at work all the time. Just look at the laws covering gays 10 years ago vs. right now. You want to make me say that I see your side, and I want the law to step in if you beat me up. Fine, sometimes I do. And you have to acknowledge that yes, sometimes I don’t as well.
Lastly, my personal complaint has little to do with my moral philosophy. I can complain about something I believe is wrong or right. What I think you mean is whether I would support a court that lets you off the hook if you inflict on me grievous injury. Well, that depends if I think I deserve it or not. Maybe I do and maybe I don’t.
If I cannot access that person to hit him back, then yes, I may just think his brother deserves to be hit as well. Especially, and you see to constantly forget this, if his brother has a hand in why that somebody hit me in the first place. Institutionalized racism is perpetuated by a fairly clear political ideology. It is not unfair to hold them all accountable especially with continuing efforts to marginalize minority rights. If the only thing they can complain about is that some black people are making fun of them, they should count themselves lucky
They are not innocent. All those who vote a certain way are objectionably harmful to minorities in a way that makes them culpable for continuing racial inequality.
I have the right to hold white people in general for institutionalized racism that is perpetuated to the point where people think its normal. Unless they are fighting against that, they are responsible. They profit from it, so why can’t they be held responsible to it? And no, its laughably not just as bad as doing it to black people
No.
But just saying “context matters” isn’t enough. WHY does it matter? What makes it matter?
But that’s a MASSIVE failure, because when you apply this analogy correctly, you’d be saying that both white and black racism are justified!
Your analogy proves my point exactly, but it hasn’t dawned on you yet.
So if you are a victim of racism by an individual, this justifies you going out and fighting every other individual who is a member of that race? Even total strangers who have never done anything to you?
No, it doesn’t. That’s pure, crude, vile racist crap.
Your contention is insulting crap though. It assumes that all whites are racists and guilty for the crimes of others. It’s just as evil as the racism you claim to be fighting.
You tell white people not to be racist. You tell black people not to be racist. Not rocket science.
Excusing racism on the part of victims of racism is not only wrong, it’s sure as hell not going to fix racism or improve race relations. I shouldn’t have to explain that.
Nope. I didn’t put words in your mouth. You are the one who opened the door. You can’t have it both ways. You either reject racism or you don’t. You can’t walk in here and dictate which criteria justify racism.
No, I don’t, actually. I reject it. I demand that you respect me and not treat me according to my race, and I extend that to all other people, of any race. This is not subject to debate.
Using jury nullification as an example to support racism to fight against racism - what wonderful irony!
Tell me - do you think gays should be able to beat up straight people because of, you know, “context?” Just wondering.
I don’t care. I expect full protection from being beaten up. And I think most people do. If you think it’s okay to take a beating for being white now and then, why wait to assuage your white guilt? Go challenge a black man to a fight and let him win. Heck, it’s your DUTY to do so, given past racism. Right?
LOL. No, whether you “deserve” it is never a justification for a violent act by one person against another, in law or ordinary morality.
No he didn’t.
All white people are not guilty of the racism of some. This is basic logic.
That you actually said that is really scary.
Tell me, what if I justified white racism against blacks the same way? Blacks are responsible for crime, or they’re all welfare queens stealing my hard-earned money, or whatever.
**You can never justify racism rationally. It is irrational by definition.
**
Like I said, this conversation isn’t just about that.
How the hell do you know who voted what way? All whites vote for racists? Come on, this stuff is getting silly.
Like hell you do.
You’re a racist. Just as bad as the racists you claim to oppose.
So now all white people profit from racism too?
Yes. It is.
Your views are profoundly wrong. So wrong that they’d be evil and disgusting even if we had no history of racism in this country.
It was offensive. Period.
Too bad, I’m agreeing to disagree! 
We’re not going to agree because we’re just too far apart and too different, so I’m not going to continue this argument unless something new comes out
You are a racist (yes, you are - your statements justifying racism make you a racist). I refuse to allow for racism or justification of racism, period.
Think about that - this has come down to you being a racist. That’s what your convoluted philosophy has gotten you.
Do you understand that there are legions of white people who are doing whatever they can to end institutionalized racism? Do you know how much it demoralizes them when someone they are trying to help lumps them in with the White Supremecists and Neo-Nazi’s? Just as there is institutional racism among whites, there is institutional distrust of whites among blacks. I know that you are going to say “They deserve it”, but if progress is not made in both directions, we will never end racism in this country. Saying Whites “deserve” to see how it feels is 100% counterproductive to your cause. Do not punish me for the sins of my fathers. Treat me as you would like to be treated, as I do the same. I think thats written in some book somewhere.
There is no such thing as minor racism. The only answer to hate is love. When you meet hate with hate you only inflame the situation.
You have no such right. You have the right to be left alone to go about your business in whatever way you see fit within the bounds of the law. If you are kept from this, you have the right to petition the law for redress of your grievances. How can you tell the differance between an active supporter and someone who remains neutral? You have the right to confront those who are actively racist against you, but when you show racist attitudes towards whites who are neutral on the subject, who just want to liive and let live, than you create more racists just as drone strikes in the ME create more terrorists.
Good comparison. And good post overall.
And there are a lot who perpetuate it and claim its nothing or they’re not doing it. Absent some confession or being caught in the act, what do you think these people deserve? If you’re a white Republican voting for people who want to remove all or parts of the Voting Rights Act and put up roadblocks to minority voting while lying about it, you deserve some shit thrown in your way. And not in the “you’re an asshole” kind of shit but something racial because they are using their race as a justification for their superiority or power. Its perfectly ok to call bigots like Phil Robertson a cracker, or redneck. I wouldn’t say its ok to do it to Bill Clinton because he’s not using his race to oppress minorities
You are taking a very specific scenario and assuming my very general statement applies. You’re mistaken. White people are not generally assumed to be Nazi’s when they are called a redneck, that’s going too far. But it is ok to call white people rednecks because, like it or not, the racial connotations are not strong enough to warrant comparisons to the N-word. And without the history of oppression, the sting of hate and evil of oppression is not there. You may want to think it is, but it isn’t. So the word is much less powerful therefore its ok to use even if there is some racial connotations. Calling someone a Nazi is a very specific insult that I would not approve of
What I most object to is the equating of what MHP’s panel did and actual harsh racist things said by white people. I agree somewhat with what you said: that there are a lot of racism on both sides. I do NOT agree, however, that there are equal amounts (which I know you didn’t claim), but I also do not agree that we should treat what benign amounts from minorities the same way as the much more damaging and pervasive ones from whites. If I can give you an example to be clear of what I mean, its this:
Megyn Kelly saying Santa is white and insisting on it: She’s wrong, racist, stupid, and part of a larger problem. Punish her severely.
MHP’s panel mocking Romney through his black adopted grandson: She’s wrong, only slightly racist, stupid, and not part of a larger problem. Don’t punish her or punish her lightly.
Some things are more serious. Treat them that way. I don’t agree that racism from blacks and minorities is equally or more serious than ones from whites, even if, in some examples, the racism from minorities is deliberate while the ones from whites is ignorant.
I don’t agree. Sometimes when you love, you leave yourself vulnerable to more hate and harm. You must meet hate with hate in order to force them to back off
Sometimes you can’t tell who’s an active supporter and someone who’s neutral. Are you saying that if I can be certain someone’s a supporter, then its ok? I think you damage your own argument. My problem with the guy’s brother is contextual: if I cannot get back at the guy originally, and I think his brother’s partially responsible, then hell yes I’m going to hit him. Not doing so helps me not at all, I’m still injured and the guy who attacked me gets off scot free. If I injure someone he’s related to, then at least I plant the seed of doubt in him that he can’t simply attack people and get off scot free. His brother may be innocent, he may turn on me, but there’s a chance he will go to his brother the original attacker and tell him to knock it off. Either way, there is a chance for the original attacker to come into some harm, whereas if I simply turned the other cheek, I invite more harm to myself without consequence
Wait, what? Obviously, you are not familiar with Melissa Harris-(some other name). She has never to my memory been a “dispassionate journalist”, quite the opposite, really. And while I have not been able to watch her show, I would be very surprised if it was meant to be unbiased reporting, as opposed to passionate discussion of current events. She may not be suited to reporting, but really, that is not what she does. Never has been.