Tapsearch Com EditorIntroducing the Newsweek/MSNBC Imus fallacy parade!
April 15th 2007 22:18
From one article:
Well, it would be kind of nice to hear from some whites and blacks who see these remarks in "starkly different ways," because all the whites I know agree Imus was out of line. Whites might be more likely to think it was overkill to can Imus, but that's hardly "stark."
The O.J. Simpson verdict is a good example of how this sometimes happens (many blacks actually believed the guy didn't do it, or said they did), but even Katrina doesn't fit the mold. Katrina might show how horrible black poverty is, and it might have shown how our government doesn't react well to it, but again, white people weren't standing around going "that's fine" while blacks disagreed.
Where blacks and whites, on average, disagree is that blacks think they should have a certain degree of racial solidarity. Whites would prefer to "get beyond race" and sometimes can't see why blacks won't go along. That played into the O.J. case but doesn't really touch the other two debates.
Then there's this:
Thank you for telling me which causes are "good." I dunno what I'd do without you. I'm sure those charities are relieved to have your approval.
Another article is headlined "Imus makes free speech a much tougher issue." As I said before, no, it doesn't.
It only gets worse from there:
The problems:
(A) The legal term "public figure," in regards to the free speech debate, means it's easier to say bad things about an individual, not that the individual has to watch his mouth. The point is a good one -- if you're talking to your friend, there's a lower chance of getting in trouble than if you're talking to thousands of people -- but that's really, really poor word choice.
(B) The media are "purveyors of America's moral code"? Enough said.
Also, this passage could hardly be more self-righteous:
Don't you understand, old white guys? Miki Turner is better than you.
Then there's this idiocy:
Again, back to another of my posts: "Free speech means speech free of government consequences, not of any consequences." A company firing its own employee has nothing to do with the principle of free expression.
Finally, the basketball team managed to "stand tall" despite some doofus shooting off his mouth. They must not have gotten the memo that "white men don't matter" anyway.
By Robert VerBruggen
The remark and its aftermath brought renewed attention to a perennial fissure in American life: the starkly different ways in which blacks and whites can see the world. (The Imus saga now joins the O. J. Simpson verdict and Hurricane Katrina as vivid chapters in the story of race in America.)
Well, it would be kind of nice to hear from some whites and blacks who see these remarks in "starkly different ways," because all the whites I know agree Imus was out of line. Whites might be more likely to think it was overkill to can Imus, but that's hardly "stark."
The O.J. Simpson verdict is a good example of how this sometimes happens (many blacks actually believed the guy didn't do it, or said they did), but even Katrina doesn't fit the mold. Katrina might show how horrible black poverty is, and it might have shown how our government doesn't react well to it, but again, white people weren't standing around going "that's fine" while blacks disagreed.
Where blacks and whites, on average, disagree is that blacks think they should have a certain degree of racial solidarity. Whites would prefer to "get beyond race" and sometimes can't see why blacks won't go along. That played into the O.J. case but doesn't really touch the other two debates.
Then there's this:
For years Imus has raised millions for charity; pressed to put autism on the national agenda; championed the construction of a veterans' rehabilitation hospital in San Antonio, Texas; campaigned to raise the death benefit for families of fallen warriors, and raised awareness about sudden infant death syndrome and sickle-cell anemia, among other good causes.
Thank you for telling me which causes are "good." I dunno what I'd do without you. I'm sure those charities are relieved to have your approval.
Another article is headlined "Imus makes free speech a much tougher issue." As I said before, no, it doesn't.
It only gets worse from there:
Common people, however, say stupid stuff all the time and get away with it. Why? Because the First Amendment says that they can. Public figures, however, are held to different standards. Those of us who work in the media know that we are in essence the purveyors of America’s moral code. That means we can push the envelope, but we know there’s a limit as to how far we can actually go.
The problems:
(A) The legal term "public figure," in regards to the free speech debate, means it's easier to say bad things about an individual, not that the individual has to watch his mouth. The point is a good one -- if you're talking to your friend, there's a lower chance of getting in trouble than if you're talking to thousands of people -- but that's really, really poor word choice.
(B) The media are "purveyors of America's moral code"? Enough said.
Also, this passage could hardly be more self-righteous:
But, while I was saddened that the young Rutgers players had to deal with all this drama during a time when they should have been celebrating their remarkable accomplishments, I cannot honestly say that I was angered or shocked by what Imus said. After having been born at the tail end of the Jim Crow era, and having lived through the Kennedy-King-Kennedy assassinations and the Civil Rights movement, I’m never surprised by anything an older white person says or does.
Don't you understand, old white guys? Miki Turner is better than you.
Then there's this idiocy:
[Freedom] is what America is supposed to be about. It is, but the truth is America has never abided by the laws of her constitution. All men were not created equal. Freelance writer Kenneth Eng found that out after he wrote a piece called “Why I Hate Black People” for AsianWeek.
Those were obviously feelings he needed to keep to himself. He was canned for his freedom of expression.
Those were obviously feelings he needed to keep to himself. He was canned for his freedom of expression.
Again, back to another of my posts: "Free speech means speech free of government consequences, not of any consequences." A company firing its own employee has nothing to do with the principle of free expression.
Finally, the basketball team managed to "stand tall" despite some doofus shooting off his mouth. They must not have gotten the memo that "white men don't matter" anyway.
By Robert VerBruggen
| 38 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
