I understand he may just be trying to be funny, but it’s hard to get my head around his comments. Comparing the level of suffering is always a nasty business, but I’m quite sure the suffering caused by corruption and poverty in Africa is right up there. Is John Gibson saying we should ignore every single aspect of our lives and only focus on terror attacks in western countries? What is his motivation for determining that the untold suffering in Africa isn’t really important compared to the suffering in Europe? He wouldn’t be a racist prick, would he? :mad:
Psycopath? He’s a jerk and a schmuck, but…
I wish he’d post that article as an OP in GD. The dogpile would be a thing of beauty.
That said I don’t think he’s racist, just not all that bright.
It reads like an Onion article. Bizzare.
I think it’s a lack of empathy, or an inability to have empathy for people too different from him. He can feel for those Westerners who were killed and injured, but he cannot for the many more non-Westerners who die of starvation in Africa.
That sounds about right. I’m hesitant to call that outright racism though.
That sounds right too.
I agree it’s not outright racism. I think all people, racist or not, have more empathy for people whom they are more like. It’s just that most have enough empathy to go beyond that group, especially if the dissimilar people are suffering more.
I think John Gibson simply doesn’t have the average amount of empathy given to a normal person. At least, I hope the average person has more.
No, I see what he means. It really seems at times that people take “the white mans burden” to heart, that Africa is some retarded child unable to care for itself and in constant need of Europe to save it.
I once read a few posts from a Nigerian man about it a few years ago. He said he was torn on it. On one had, Africa is a mess and needs real help. On the other hand, it feels sort of belittling.
I thought this thread was going to be about this:
What in the article gives you impression that’s what he means?
I think that’s a fair assessment. The major economic powers of the world spend several millions of dollars apiece to get their best and brightest to a meeting of limited duration. On the day before, there is a terrorist attack–not the first, won’t be the last–which first needs to be addressed by the professional police and security forces so as to avoid making stupid comments like the ones that blamed Middle Easterners after the Oklahoma City attack or blamed Iraq after the New York/Washington attack.
So, as one of a number of speeches and interviews on a wide array of topics (all scheduled and prepared for beforehand) the British PM makes one policy speech on Africa. Ignoring all the other remarks that Blair makes on the same day, Gibson declares that Blair should really be wasting time talking about pulling out fingernails so that he can ignore Africa.
Gibson is a fool.
The right-wing insta-pundits have been overflowing with stupid remarks in the wake of the London bombing. You’ve got Brit Hume admitting that his first thoughts were to buy low in the stock market, fer Primus’ sake, and Sean Hannity making a ham-fisted attempt to use the bombings as “proof” that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. :rolleyes:
Not that it’ll make a whit of difference to the neoconservative apologists, but I’m anticipating even more silly spinning of the bombings next week.
Let’s contrast styles, then, Johnny:
One of these postures seems as though it’s purpose-built to inspire a new wave of jihadi.
I’ll pick an “oil on the waters” approach over “oil on the fire” any day, thanks.
This is a bit off topic, but I gotta ask why some of you folks watch FNC. Is it to see blatant evidence that evolution works both ways?
I thought Gibson was just an anchor. If so, why is he sharing his opinions? Or has covering for Mr. Bill brought out the inner moron in him?
They are all nuts…Brit Hume on “futures” and the London bombing.
I saw that article as well, but didn’t think to post a BBQ Pit thread, even though it also made me angry. “They’d blow up Paris, and who cares”?! While he may not like French foreign policy, or even the French, I’m gonna presume he sympathizes with people who didn’t feel any regret that 9/11 happened because they disagree with American foreign policy. Otherwise, he’s inconsistent.
Perhaps calling him a psycopath is a bit much. But his lack of empathy for fellow human beings is truly frightening.
I agree, “psychopath” is a bit overboard. But his column does solidify his credentials as a “compassionate conservative”.
That. Fucking. Asshole. :mad:
I wish a bomb went off in his house… and nobody got hurt and he just had a massive headache the rest of his life…
I like the sound of that. Maybe we should start throwing the words “compassionate conservative” around more like that.
Originally Posted by John Gibson
Mr. President, put a sock in it. What about the bombing? Caught the terrorists yet? Are you yanking out their fingernails yet?
It seems that Mr. Gibson is an advocate of torture as well. :wally