Yes, Soros is a contributor. So what? Can you show that it translates to actual partisan bias in the content of the network? No, you cannot.
I read today that his remarks constitute breech of contract. That is why he was canned.
Really? Certainly you are not that clueless.
Oh, okay. So we can joke about a specific belief but not specific garb? Got it. Where can I download the latest list of what is considered inappropriate by spin doctors? :rolleyes:
It’s offensive to people who believe in the rapture, because it’s calling them a bunch of idiots.
Williams wasn’t joking, and yes it is not bigoted to critique a specific belief, while it is bigoted to make asumptions about people knowing nothing about them but what they’re wearing.
I would modify your statement to be: “we can joke about a specific belief, but not about the likely actions of people in specific garb”.
The problem is not that he criticizes Islam as a belief system. It’s that he makes assumptions about the likely actions of random people on an airplane based solely on what they look like. Reaching conclusions about the behavior or people based on how they look is pretty much the definition of bigotry, no?
As an example:
Not necesarily bigoted: “I think that Catholic beliefs on priest chastity leads to increased levels of sexual abuse in the priesthood. I wish Catholics would stop with this belief because it is dangerous”.
Bigoted: “I don’t let my kids around any Catholics because after the priest abuse scandals they make me worried. I get nervous around anyone with a cross on their neck.”
As for whether firing him was a good idea? Probably not. It will just make the right more angry, increasing the calls for defunding. And, sadly, the public will be on Juan’s side. Fearing and demonizing Muslims is pretty popular right now.
“Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I see a black guy with his pants halfway down and his bling and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Black, I get worried. I get nervous.”
If a white commentator had said this he would have been fired and Juan would have been the first one to condemn him.
Yo biznotch, why you doctorin’ post 106 to make it look like the quote was from me?
They are a bunch of idiots. It’s a stupid belief. It’s no different than ridiculing flat earthers.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
But it’s not bigoted. I can call someone (or a group of people) an idiot without being a bigot. What I can’t do without being bigoted, is make an assumption about the belief or actions of a person or group of people just based on how they look.
Calling someone stupid because you know they hold beliefs you find stupid: Not bigoted.
Calling someone stupid because they look or dress a certain way*: Generally bigoted.
- Unless you’re criticizing the dress itself as being stupid. This is why I don’t think that criticism of Islamic dress in general is bigoted.
I have no idea what a biznotch is, but it was a mistake in the quoting software. I had highlighted a quote of yours for multi-reponse, but then closed the browser. When I single-quoted then one I responded to it had replaced his name with yours. I’ll flag the post for correction if it’s too late to do it myself. Apologies.
Roll your eyes at yourself. You and Beck both used that exact wording. Maybe you weren’t paying attention to what you were typing, but Beck certainly didn’t say it that way by accident: he was implying that Soros was paying for NPR to hire reporters who agree with Soros and who will carry out his agenda. Soros donated money to NPR and NPR will use the money the way it sees fit. He won’t get veto power over their hiring and personnel decisions. Does that imply Soros likes NPR? Sure. But that doesn’t say much about the station. For all I know Soros is nuts for A Prairie Home Companion.
Think nothing of it. The people on this board take themselves way too seriously (especially when their arguments are wrong, which is most of the time).
I fixed the quote tag, Mr Smashy. Coding mistakes happen all the time on this board, especially when one poster is quoting another.
Um… it was a quote from Beck that I cited. One that was emailed to me. Note that I don’t watch Beck, I don’t like his show(s), and I don’t own gold :eek:
If I were NPR and I knew my sugar daddy just donated $1.8m to hire 100 new reporters, am I going to hire guys who a) think like he does, or b) completely piss off the benefactor. Remember Soros is also the money behind Media Matters, HuffPo and other Democrat attack dogs.
I’m sure you didn’t fall off the turnip truck. You know the answer. You don’t need explicit veto power or hiring authority in order to influence an organization (which is why you, nor anyone else, can CATEGORICALLY PROVE that the White house, and their $400m/year contribution, had no impact at all in getting rid of Mr Fox Friendly).
roger that, no harm done.
Let’s look at it a little differently. Two words differently:
Now how does it look. Lemmie tighten it up a bit to make it clearer:
It doesn’t matter what he said prior, he said outright that he is afraid that any or all Muslims are terrorists. There were no qualifiers in statement other than ‘looks like a Muslim’. He announced he was a bigot. ‘Bigot’ is generally not one of the attributes you look for in a public figure representing your company. I don’t blame NPR for firing him at all.
This wasn’t uberPC, it wasn’t massive liberal bias, it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t hate on Muslims in his reporting, it doesn’t even matter how much being associated with Fox News hurts his journalistic rep, this was a company showing that they don’t want a publicly known bigot representing them.
Companies fire employees they don’t want representing them for all kinds of reasons. ‘He’s a bigot’ seems to be one of the better ones.
It shouldn’t be too big a problem for him though. After all, what do you do with a person who’s openly bigoted against Muslims? Why, give him a show on Fox of course.
I’m troubled by his comments and they struck me as deeply inappropriate. Yes, someone can get nervous in certain circumstances, and that’s not necessarily controllable. But to say that people’s garb means they “first and foremost” identify as something is not correct. I’m female. If I wear a skirt, I still am not “first and foremost” identifying as female.
Essentially, Williams seems to be arguing that because of the specific dress code of certain people, we can assume or at least fear a certain level of radicalism and terrorism. This is a scary, ugly belief to profess, and starting it with a standard “Not to be racist but…” disclaimer does nothing to dispel that.
None of his remarks were racist. Certainly not as racist as someone calling him “boy”.
Mr. Smashy has already posted a cite that shows you are wrong about NPR’s motives in the firing.
This statement is also completely false.
AFAICT, not even one statement you have made in this thread is even remotely true. I wish I could say I was surprised.
On preview - hotflugwok, I think we have had enough doctored quoting with the inadvertent ones.
Regards,
Shodan