Not to mention the audience's "chuckling" approval of "ironic" racism

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2010 6:44:17 PM

Quote :

"yes, that's the broader point. But, why choose to say "his people." She said things to that effect several times, and she says it differently than the way she says other things. "His people" rolls off her tongue way too easily, especially compared to how she talks about not giving him the "full force of what she could do." Look, it's a minor thing, but it's still there. I'm guilty of similar talk and thought at times, I won't lie about that. But I'd be crucified in the media for saying it if I were in her shoes. "

Was there some white person who was talking about how they changed their racist views and was crucified for it?

And she was using that phrase to connect with her audience, to try and get them to question their own views, like she had done. It's like a fake out... it's not hard to understand, if you look at it honestly, and not with the intent of partisan hackery.

It's like if I said "Bush was a pretty dumb president overall, when you think about it..."

"... but when he did XYZ, was it really that bad? Didn't XYZ actually help us out? Maybe he wasn't so dumb afterall..."

If i'm using aaronburro-thinking, then my point can never move beyond "bush was dumb" no matter what the true intent of the sentence actually was.

7/22/2010 7:22:14 PM

and I would counter that such rationale would not be afforded to a white person. "connecting with your audience" is hardly a reason to be approving of insensitivity.

7/22/2010 7:26:39 PM

That's because you can't put a white person in her shoes. The context doesn't work. You can't simply swap the races and decide "it's racist because a white person would be a racist for saying it".

That's a poor criteria for identifying racism anyways.

7/22/2010 11:15:53 PM

how do you figure? A white person can't say "i sent a black guy to his people"?

7/22/2010 11:25:07 PM

Quote :

"and I would counter that such rationale would not be afforded to a white person. "connecting with your audience" is hardly a reason to be approving of insensitivity. "

Yes it does, if your goal is to get people to realize that "insensitivity" is wrong.

Which i guess re-leads to this question...

Quote :

"Was there some white person who was talking about how they changed their racist views and was crucified for it? "

7/23/2010 12:02:08 AM

^^whiteness is hegemonic and blackness isn't

7/23/2010 1:26:57 AM

and? what the fuck does that matter? insensitivity does not require power to exist. dumbass

7/24/2010 1:20:14 PM

Quote :

" The Obama White House is too white..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25dowd.html

Quote :

"His closest advisers — some of the same ones who urged him not to make the race speech after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue exploded — are so terrified that Fox and the Tea Party will paint Obama as doing more for blacks that they tiptoe around and do less. “Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official."

[Edited on July 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/25/2010 1:17:42 PM

It's interesting, and impressive, that posters in this thread have better articulated this situation than the guests on NBC's Meet the Press. Engineering school, my ass.

7/25/2010 3:41:43 PM

It's not so much that it's impressive. It's that the mainstream news outlets in this country do an embarrassingly poor job.

7/25/2010 4:44:58 PM

Pleasing stock-holders, maintaining viewership > accuracy and fairness of reporting & analysis.

7/25/2010 11:20:28 PM

just throwing this out there for your consideration. from Dan Riehl this morning:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-must-stop-the-white-man-and-his-uncle-toms-.html

7/26/2010 1:57:12 PM

even more interesting, and I hadn't heard this until today, so forgive me if it's *OLD*, but Breitbart is saying that he didn't edit the video. Rather, he posted what he was given, and all of it. if true, that is a brilliant set-up by the NAACP. Pure brilliance!

7/26/2010 6:45:54 PM

^ he’s saying the NAACP GAVE him the video?

7/26/2010 7:15:56 PM

that I don't know. The stuff I've read says he won't reveal his source. but, the only people who had access to the video would have been the NAACP. so who knows...

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2010 7:18:51 PM

wow, you really are an idiot

7/26/2010 10:21:50 PM