WatchI've stayed mostly quiet on this issue because I'm not a big believer in racism. Human beings are genetically predisposed to avoid strangers, and one of the criteria is race and species. Both blacks and whites and others have numerous reasons to be pissed off at each other, and it's best not to fan the flames by pretending it's anything more than it is. Both blacks and whites on the left are often too hysterical about racial issues, and most people on the right can't get through the day without bleating "RACE CARD!".
However this publication by the well known neoconservative slime machine National Review editor John Derbyshire is about to change my mind. John Derbyshire isn't some KKK jerk in the shadows and the National Review isn't some rogue fringe website. In fact National Review articles are directly wired into Newscrap and frequently quoted without editing.
I just have one editorial comment myself: Republicans, get your fucking people in line before you incite a genuine race war! You mouth-breathing zombie pricks have no excuses this time. The next Republican jackoff that defends the right against charges of racism should go soak his head in the toilet.
Here's the link. You may have trouble pulling it up because "firestorm" doesn't quite cover it and the servers are crashing:
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire
Short version:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
You're going to compare the Zimmerman edit, which may have been a mistake for time or may not have been, with Derbyshire condemning the entire black race?
Really????
Neoconservatives will try to make Derbyshire look like a rogue element in an otherwise pure movement. It will be complete bullshit but they will try.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Can we resurrect the old Democrats? You know, the New Deal Democrats? Sans the racist Southern Dixiecrats?
I'm tired of having to choose between Neocons and New Left 60's radicals.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog, I have never, ever said replace government with nothing. Not once, ever. Limited, constitutional government is the solution.
Do I want EVERY restriction removed from free enterprise? No. Most of them - it depends which one's. Many of them, yes. Particulary the ones which are barriers to new businesses. You know - many of the retarded zoning restrictions, "permits", fee's, government red tape, micro-management, added taxes, the burden of regulatory compliance, and the like.
Do I want government to protect corperate contracts? No. I want government to enforce the law and protect ALL contracts. Or is it in you're make believe world that "some contracts are more equal than others"? Hahaha
And again, in case you haven't noticed, I'm probably more anti-war (and war profiteering) than you.
But I don't expect any type of intelligent response from you, just some stupid rant, a couple of barbs and some swear words thrown in for good measure. That seems to be your MO.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
Why tired? Start a group of like minded people on facebook or craigslist, etc.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
iwog says
You're doing what you rightly call out fools here for doing: obfuscating and dodging. To answer your enthusiastically punctuated question: yes. And to put it back to you: why not? (???)
(You won't answer, because you can't.)
Whether the employee was spouting racism, or doctoring recordings, or plagiarizing, or inventing false stories doesn't really matter. The crux of this question is if and how an organization can distance itself from the morally indefensible actions of a rogue or stupid employee. If that's possible for NBC, in principle, then it's possible for NR. Only after it's shown that the organization bears responsibility should the nature of the offense be seriously considered.
If I call you a murderer, the claim doesn't become any more true for being heinous. This is obvious, yes?
In terms of determining responsibilty: the only salient difference here is that NBC is trying to distance itself from something done on company time, in its own newsrooms, and published under its own brand. NR, on the other hand, is attempting to distance itself from something an employee did on his own time and published elsewhere, completely outside their control.
If you don't want "the neoconservatives" (what does foreign policy have to do with this? I'll presume you're talking about NR here...) to distance themselves from this (in an intellectually honest way) then you should be looking up the things Derbyshire wrote for them, which they published, and which they did not immediately fire him for.
From the tone of Lowry's announcement, I'd bet that such content exists. But it is not in evidence, as it were.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
I've never dodged a question in my life and I never will. I don't know how.
That being said, I have no idea what you're asking me. Why not what? As far as your answer of "Yes" is concerned, it really isn't enough. How is the condemnation of any contact with an entire race the same as omitting a word or two?
Is it possible you're asking me "why not" without providing the "why" yourself?
msilenus says
So what? NBC admitted an error. What more do you want them to do? News organizations cut segments out of quotes all the time because they are trying to package the news into small enough pieces so the average consumer can handle it. You don't know if it was intentional and neither do I. However under no circumstances are these two incidents comparable.
It's NORMAL for all the news stations to sensationalize every story and publish it with as much drama as possible. Where Newscorp differs is they ALWAYS force a bias to the right while most other media is playing to the audience.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
You asked me if I'm "Really???" going to compare two things. I said yes, and then asked why not. As in: why is it not appropriate to compare those two cases?
The question stands.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
iwog says
O boy...slavery didn't exactly end. If you read the 13th amendment it was made illegal..unless duly convicted of a crime. You cannot claim something ended when the terms "unless" are added to the criminality of it. The 13th amendment was largely invoked when chain gangs were imposed. In short the government nationalized the process and regulated that it would only be imposed on those convicted of crimes. And it was used by southern states to get cheap labor from former slaves to perform reconstruction.
We pulled children out of coal mines from preventing children from working in the first place. FDR did that although there are exceptions in acting and farmwork for children.
Seat belts in car exist because companies invented them and Chevy screwed up with the Corvair. If you eliminate that car chances are it would have taken another decade or so to put them in. Children can still die from expired milk if they don't know how to read!
If you claim to be on the left that is fine but how can it be argued that everyone is intelligent and empowered but yet everything is wrong? Government was understandable when there was no recourse but with the internet these days there is.
As for NBC they edited not just the news but a 911 call transcript which is technically a governmental account....that's bad...really bad.
A mistake is only a mistake if they admitted to it and found it. By allowing other parties to find it first and then waiting to make a response it implies that it was not. If no one brought it up would NBC have admitted to it? The media usually has people check things. Then again the NYT had the jason blair issue which pretty much caused it to drop like a rock in credibility.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
That piece about homosexuality is somewhat tame, but it does show what a pandering idiot he is. I think he confuses tolerance of homosexuality with liking the concept, which is absurd.
Of course for a man who is not gay, the literal thought of man on man sex isn't going to be appealing. But only a moron would think that accepting homosexuals (out of the closet) into society without judgement, is the same as being able to relate to their sexual preferences.
"That opinion was, after all, well-nigh universal 30 or 40 years ago"
That's quite an argument. Let's send them back to the closet. They should live in shame and know that their inclinations are the perversions that they are. Don't dirty us with the ugly knowledge that these minority preferences exist.
He should ask himself why like most men he probably is less disturbed by gay women than by gay men (the reason is obvious: a man can relate to sexual attraction to women).
He passes the moron test in my book. Not that he didn't already.
I agree with Iwog. NR is in the business of sharing opinion. One of their very regular writers shared some very ugly opinions, that reflect on them.
As for the NBC mistake, that was just a stupid mistake. And maybe it does tarnish their image of objectivity. But they are a news organization who at high levels pride themselves on not being about bias or opinion.
In the NR case it's more like something true about the Tea Party and many hard core republicans slipped out. They accidently released just alittle bit too much opinion.
See Ben Adler (http://www.thenation.com/blog/167276/john-derbyshire-national-review-and-conservatives-race-problem ) -
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
Figures. You'd ask me a question you refused to answer yourself namely why it's appropriate to compare those two cases.
I already answered you in part. One was probably a mistake OR an attempt to over-sensationalize the story for media consumption. The other is a hate filled rant condemning an entire race.
They are different at every level. One is a personal drama involving two men. The other has broad implications for millions of people belonging to the African race. One may or may not attempt to label a single individual as a racist, the other is without any doubt an attempt to condemn all blacks in every situation.
So what's your side? You didn't present a side so we don't know, you just said they were the same. Furthermore you made this insane childish assertion:
msilenus says
I am not a member of the American fascist movement. I am not a brainwashed robot programmed by Newscorp. I HAVE the ability to think for myself, answer questions, and make intelligent arguments. Marcus and Thunder have done the same.
There is no parity between the right and the left. I often say right-wingers can't answer my questions, which is probably why you decided to mock me, however when I say it I'm telling the truth. You're not. I suggest you absorb this lesson and ask yourself why that's the case.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mdovell says
Seatbelts exist in cars because they were mandated by the government. In this case, automobile producers fought the regulations because they didn't want their cars to be considered unsafe. In all my other examples, it was government forcing corporations to do the right thing, in many cases with violent opposition.
Government is the only tool people have against wealth. Destroying it is destroying the ability of people to reign in power. Republicans have no intention of removing government and leaving a vacuum. They have people waiting in the wings that are all too ready to restrict freedom in lots of creative ways.
Company housing, company stores, 80 hour work weeks, pollution, toxic working conditions, unsafe products, and forced mediation with a 99% success rate for the corporation in any dispute. That's what you're voting for when you vote Republican.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
mdovell says
Seat belts and the Corvair were two independent auto safety issues championed by Ralph Nader. The Corvair was said to be crash prone. We had one back in the late 60s.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,407 comments
Davis, CA
marcus says
Ralph Nader unjustly takes the credit for seat belts.
THIS incredible man is who we should credit with all the lives saved by seat belts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp
John Stapp was present when LBJ signed the 1966 seatbelt requirement into law.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
marcus says
The only thing championed by Ralph Nader was Ralph Nader. He was a self promoting egotist who hated all corporations and wanted to exert control any way he could.
Case in point, "Unsafe at any Speed" vilifying the corvair. His contention was that swing arm rear suspension was a dangerous design, which was not true anyway. Yet Nader never mentioned VW, porsche, and mercedes cars which had exactly the same design as the corvair and sold a lot more cars worldwide. The only point of the book was to discredit GM, not anything to do with safety. I remember in the early 70's NHTSA did extensive track testing on corvairs comparing them to other cars of the early 60's and found no problems at all.
FYI ford and I think hudson and saab offered seat belts in the 50's.
A man named Dr. Sheldon was also very important in the history of seat belts while ralph nader was still in grade school. He did serious research on seat belts and auto safety that was very influential. He pretty much invented the retractable seat belt.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
thunderlips11 says
How is the whole "gay" issue in any way related to superstition or economics? I've never heard anyone think they'd have 7 years of bad luck if they saw two guys kissing. And how does the gay issue really affect the economy (other than in the Castro district, Key West FL, and Proveincetown MA)? ;)
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Can you believe that NBC apologized for editing the 911 Zimmerman tapes.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/nbc-news-apologizes-editing-tape-911-call-16067101
Well, not so much bullshit after all.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
My mother used to tell me that the Devil would tell nine truths to get in one lie.
What FOX "news" junkies don't know is that FOX -- not to be outdone by the Devil -- will tell one truth to get in nine lies.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
My Mom said "In all labor there is profit".
My Dad said "Old too soon, schmart too late".
My brother? "Get me another beer, damnit".
Who was it that said "Don't confuse the news with the truth?"
Or this one: "You've got to learn to read between the lies?"
Time to get back to work, I don't want the boss to catch me on company time.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Fair enough. But what "rights" are "gays" really being denied? When I went to vote, nobody asked who I had sex with the previous night. And nobody is trying to prevent free speech and association based on sexual preference (that I know of). And so on and so forth.
Is marriage a "right"? I thought marriage was more like an institution. Maybe the whole concept of marriage is obsolete now that we have widespread contraception. It used to be that sex = babies = continuation of civilization. Not so much anymore.
To me, the whole gay issue seems to be another "group-identity politics" thing. The kind of thing the aristocracy loves. It divides we the sheeple into camps so we can't unite against the aristocracy.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
iwog says
I never said that they were "the same", so you listing ways in which they're different is non-responsive. The situations don't need to be identical to be mutually relevant. You haven't explained why any difference means that NBC's response is adequate and NRs is not. That's the crux of it. The question stands. For someone who doesn't know how to dodge a question, you are adept at doing it innately.
Your speculation that the editing might have been a mistake is the closest you've come to addressing this, but it's weak on its face. In the first sense because motive plainly doesn't matter --being materially wrong on a matter of fact is anathem to serious news reporting. Would you watch NBC if they were frequently wrong simply because you felt their heart was in the right place? I hope not. In the second sense: the issue is settled: NBC fired the man. Mistake or no, it was a firing offense. Whatever the motive, the reputation threat was plainly sufficient that NBC felt the need to distance themselves from it, and people on the left invariably believe they did enough to effect that. And yet, NR can't distance themselves from an error by firing an employee who was acting on his own? Why not? How can that make sense?
Any two situations will have differences. To answer the question of "why not", you need to get at why those differences might or might not matter. A list of differences does not constitute reasoning.
To see a "side" on this question, I refer you to my earlier post.
msilenus says
Now, kindly start from the differences you point out, and provide a case for why those differences allow NBC to be clean because it fired an employee who committed misconduct, but demand that NR remain dirty despite doing the same. You haven't done this. It's been several posts now.
P.S. My parenthetical: "(You won't answer because you can't.)" which you've found childish and offensive enough to comment on twice, was intended as a sort of joke. I've seen you make similar comments to fools here, when you were supremely confident in the strength of your position. I had you pegged as the sort who doesn't dish out what he can't take.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
I'll add that NBC is more credible than NR. And Fox News. And many other right-wing peddlers of sophistic narrative. That credibility gap stems from the sophistic narrative peddling.
NBC handled their little scandal correctly, and so did NR. They both made it perfectly clear that they do not tolerate the bullshit at hand. As it should be. And that should be the end of that.
Follow
Befriend
233 comments
I've been reading NRO for years and think Derbyshire is a crank and not really sorry to see him go.
Worth noting that Derbyshire is British and married to a Chinese immigrant. I do think some in and around the Asian community feel a sense of betrayal how other minorities get preferential treatment in school admissions and government jobs in the US.
It was just last week that former mayor of Washington DC was saying Asians run "dirty businesses" and "ought to go". But Barry despite all of his massive flaws, racism and drug abuse continues to have good standing in the Democrat party.
Should we draw all sorts of connections between racist drug addicts and Democrats based on Marion Barry's behaviour?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/lessons-from-marion-barrys-anti-asian-comments/2012/04/06/gIQAzS33zS_blog.html
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
You're so full of bullshit I don't even know where to start, and I don't say that often.
"The crux of it" as you say is something not uttered in this thread. I defy you to show me where I said NR's response wasn't adequate. You've now constructed a massive straw man based on a non-existent premise. I regret spending so much time on my well considered reply.
msilenus says
Right........because I'm supposed to construct a series of essays while you do nothing but fling out questions based on a bullshit premise that I never held.
The differences are fundamental and do matter. If you need me to explain why implicating a single man as a racist versus calling an entire race consisting of millions of individuals dangerous matters, then we don't have enough common ground to have this conversation.
What is far more likely is that you're being disingenuous, because if you're not, your position is absurd.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
Who said NR remains dirty? Again it appears you're constructing straw men wholesale. NR is a fascist propaganda mill. It was a fascist propaganda mill before it fired Derbyshire and will remain a fascist propaganda mill after it fired Derbyshire.
People have patterns here and apparently your pattern is to put words in people's mouths then demand answers to questions with a false premise.
You'll find it's going to be much easier for me to reply to you now.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
iwog says
Let's revisit, briefly, my first post on your thread, and your response to it:
iwog: "Who said NR remains dirty?"
...
Okay. Have it your way. You think that neocon rag NR is pure on this front, having fired Derbyshire as a rogue element, and never argued otherwise.
Perish the thought.
I suppose I was delusional, seeing that in what you wrote. But, if that is the case, then what, exactly, was your objection to what I wrote? If you didn't say in the tail of that quoted bit, then you never said so at all. And we're just left with "Really????" And my standing question, which you absolutely don't know how to dodge (it's just coming naturally): "Why not?"
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
"Why not?" is not a complete question and you seem to go to great lengths to play games with your wording.
Type your ENTIRE question in a single sentence and I'll answer you.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
msilenus says
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
iwog says
In politics, up is down, black is white.
Historically, government was the way the wealth controlled the people, not the other way around. Do you have historical examples to support your statement "government is the only tool people have against wealth."
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
socal2 says
Apparently. Maybe all republicans are in fact racists? I mean, patrick did post that very compelling fat, redneck, bible-thumping picture a week back.
Maybe all democrats are ponzi-schemers, a la Bernie Maddoff. It's all bullshit.
The best political propoganda associates the other team with a negative character trait. (So we have liberal pinko commie welfare babies vs fat conservative redneck bible thumper racists. They are both accused of being uneducated and misinformed obviously.) This allows the team leaders to control the dialogue, while proclaiming the other side to be a bunch of uneducated (insert political character here).
This racism theme is pure propoganda gold for the democrat leaders.
I was not familar with this Derbyshire fellow before this incident. Nor do I really see why this is even newsworthy, besides the whole left propoganda angle.
From wikipedia, "Derbyshire supported Michael Schiavo's position in the Terri Schiavo case, ridiculed George W. Bush's "itty-bitty tax cut, paid for by dumping a slew of federal debt on your children and grandchildren",[4] has derided Bush in general for being too sure of his religious convictions and for his "rich-kid-ness",[5] dismisses small-government conservatism as unlikely to ever take hold (although he is not unsympathetic to it), has called for immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (but favored the invasion), opposes market reforms or any other changes in Social Security, is pro-choice on abortion, supports euthanasia in a fairly wide range of circumstances, and has suggested that he might (in a time of international crisis) vote for Hillary Clinton as president.[6]"
I'm in the cheap seats, but from here, this guy sounds as much IF NOT MORE liberal than conservative. He clearly likes to make up his own mind on political topics. How in the world does this guy's angry-racial-diatribe reflect on the rest of the conservative world?
Follow
Befriend (1)
9 threads
64 comments
Anaheim, CA
What vitriol!! The left via the new dark panthers, al shitton, and jesme jackson haven't initiated a race war too?? gimme a break...
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
CBOEtrader says
Magna Carta, end of slavery, practically everything done under FDR, Teddy Roosevelt's crusade against trusts, progressive taxation.
Are you kidding me?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
My objection is discussing the two events like they are equivalents. They aren't even close.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,078 comments
iwog says
CBOE must have been referring to dictatorships, kings etc over most of history.
A lot of people can't see the obvious strong trend back in that direction. The aristocracy (plutocrats and corporations) want us to have a virtual dictatorship that they own. That's why corporations are now people.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
iwog says
Ah. Well, I wasn't.
ETA: The only extent to which I was suggesting they were similar was in how the handling of the situations should reflect on the organizations. Since you've recently clarified that you agree on this point, I don't think there's much else to say.
Follow
Befriend
53 threads
658 comments
marcus says
Watch what you say about Corporations like me. My hired staff of ex-Blackwater rapists are prone to being trigger happy. I don't want to be forced to have my men Stand Their Ground.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Travis Bickle says
Travis P Bickle, are you the same person as TPB?
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,705 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Vicente says
I thought it was Tucker.
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
iwog says
My bad. I was being too vague.
The issue is moreso about centralised government power concentrated in a handful of super powerful men. This scenario has historically (in my modest knowledge of such), been a means for that small group of powerful men to control the people.
However 1)Magna Carta -- this was the people taking power AWAY from the small group of powerful men, not the other way around.
2)Ending of slavery -- again, this was due to public outcry (the war was a bit unnecessary), and resulted in the government having LESS control over the people, not more.
3)FDR -- I assume you mean FDR's new deal? Although a tiny fraction of total spending at the time, the politically well-connected use these programs as moral justification to tax everyone else (see the Buffet Rule and Obama's propoganda speech he gave a few days back as an example), as well as blatently buy votes for their candidates (Bush's medicare part D and Hilary Bonds are easy examples). End result is way more fucking power for a small group. (Editor's note: I think all social programs should be done by local government, and should be outlawed federally, as per the constitution.)
4)Teddy Roosevelt's crusade against trusts -- good example, i like this one.
5)progresive taxation -- too long of a discussion to start here. The tax code needs to be burned and rewritten.
So, a less vague question. Are there historical examples of increasing concentration of power into a centralised government resulting in more wealth/liberty/better lives for the average person? I can't think of any.
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
iwog says
Correct. One is a random jerk speaking his mind. The other is an major media institution that may or may not be trying to manipulate the truth to fan the flames of racism in the US.
Derbyshire is an insiginificant schmuck. I'll take some random jerk's rantings over pure propoganda anyday. At least Derbyshire was being honest.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
CBOEtrader says
Derbyshire is an insignificant schmuck now, but he certainly wasn't before his stupid rant. I find him cited all over the internets.