Racist anti-Romney joke gets editor fired.

[monovillage]

I never denied any such thing. I denied that his statements were "racist," a word which was (inaccurately) included in the thread title you yourself wrote.

I think your characterization of this guy as "hating Republicans" is overblown. As I've written before in this thread, you Republicans have devolved into whiny little girls.

You'd be the expert on whining little girls.

 

[chucky2]

Obviously if someone is being accused of partying down and ignoring the suffering of a particular group of people as that group drowns, the implication is that the person being accused is racist.

Wow, I think we're getting somewhere. That is exactly what this guy said in his "joke". Nothing more, nothing less.

It is not racist to make such an accusation, however.

No, and I never said this guy was a racist. He called all Reps racist, but that doesn't make him a racist himself. A bigot maybe, but not a racist.

Just so I'm clear, is it a racist or anti-Semitic statement to say "the Nazi party is an anti-Semitic organization"? I think that's a ridiculous position but that is what you're clearly saying.

It's an anti-Semitic statement not against Jews, but leveled against the Nazi party. Although here you've been more specific than this guy, because you said organization and not just Nazis in general. Lets re-word to have it be the same:

'Nazis are anti-Semitic'.

Now we're at the equivalent of what this guy said about Reps. Given this statement, every Nazi is anti-Semitic. In your statement you could potentially have the organization be anti-Semitic, but individuals be a Nazi but not themselves anti-Semitic. In my revised statement above, all Nazis are anti-Semitic, same as what this guy said about Reps.

If that's your position, I'd like to see a single reputable dictionary that defines "racism" to include such a sentiment.

See above. I don't think any dictionary or person would have a problem with what I'm saying. Test it out: Do what I said to do at the local NAACP office, see how that's received. Make sure to tell them when they're kicking the sh1t out of you that you didn't mean they were n-word, just the Org. Do you honestly think they'd see it that way?

Chuck

 

[berzerker60]

Well, I'll tell you what: Walk into your local NAACP office then and tell them at lunch hour, while they're streaming through the lobby, 'The NAACP is a bunch of n1ggers'. See how they take that, and then tell them, hey, that's not racist.

I appreciate your civility in your replies, but you are simply not going to change my mind on this. Infering an entire group of people have some kind of negative feeling/thought against specific ethnicities is racist. Anyone I know, from the most flaming liberal White Guilter, to the most far right @sshole, would agree with me. This guy said Republicans are racist, because they specifically party when black people are drowning. If he's said Republicans specifically party when people are drowning, it would not be a racist comment at all. It's still be totally inaccurate in context, but, it would not be racist.

We don't have to debate this at all though....just find your local large NAACP office, and go make that comment I suggested you make, exactly, and loudly, at the lunch rush.

My guess is, they're going to be leaning towards my side on this one...

It's the use of the racial slur against a group of black people that makes the action you suggest racist. Racial slurs are inherently racist because they imply certain negative connotations should be applied to everyone of that race, and usually have been used historically to promote aggression against that race. It would not be racist to go into the NAACP and shout out "The NAACP doesn't care about white people." Calling someone a racial slur IS racist; reporting that someone else said a racial slur is not racist. It would also be racist to call the Bowling Club of New Zealand a bunch of wetbacks - it wouldn't make any sense, but it would be racist anyway because it's using a racial slur (and thereby propogating the idea that because of their race, the group called 'wetbacks' deserve mocking/name-calling and whatever the specifics of the term imply).

If the joke had been, "Republicans don't care about black people drowning because they're white," that WOULD be racist, because it slurs white people because of their race and implies that all white people don't care about black people drowning.

If the joke had been, "Republicans don't care about black people drowning and black people are stupid," that WOULD be racist, because it slurs black people as being stupid because of their race. Saying every member of the NAACP is stupid is not racist because it's saying they're stupid because of their membership in the NAACP. This is true even if every NAACP member was black (which isn't the case).

A statement is racist if and only if it attributes certain characteristics to people because of their race.

 

[chucky2]

snip

A statement is racist if and only if it attributes certain characteristics to people because of their race.

I just disagree. If I tell someone that my buddy hates black people, I just called my buddy a racist. I'm not racist against my buddy, but I sure just called him one. My comment isn't racist, it's what then?

Chuck

 

[berzerker60]

I just disagree. If I tell someone that my buddy hates black people, I just called my buddy a racist. I'm not racist against my buddy, but I sure just called him one. My comment isn't racist, it's what then?

Chuck

Basically we're just down to a semantic thing, I just think your usage here is extremely unusual and that's what caused all of us to jump on it thinking you were saying something more common and more stupid ("liberals are the real racists!").

Your comment is just a statement. It's not a racist one unless you say he hates black people because they're dumb, or because he's white, or some other content that attributes characteristics to people because of their race.

Obviously you're free to your own use of language, just be aware that I read a whole lot about race-related topics, both professionally (I'm a historian) and in online forums, and I've never your definition for a racist statement. But since you're also not making the moral judgment that someone who makes racist statements are racists themselves, it's not really a bad position, just an unusual one.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It's an anti-Semitic statement not against Jews, but leveled against the Nazi party. Although here you've been more specific than this guy, because you said organization and not just Nazis in general. Lets re-word to have it be the same:

'Nazis are anti-Semitic'.

Now we're at the equivalent of what this guy said about Reps. Given this statement, every Nazi is anti-Semitic. In your statement you could potentially have the organization be anti-Semitic, but individuals be a Nazi but not themselves anti-Semitic. In my revised statement above, all Nazis are anti-Semitic, same as what this guy said about Reps.

See above. I don't think any dictionary or person would have a problem with what I'm saying. Test it out: Do what I said to do at the local NAACP office, see how that's received. Make sure to tell them when they're kicking the sh1t out of you that you didn't mean they were n-word, just the Org. Do you honestly think they'd see it that way?

Chuck

Again, you have failed to answer my question:

Just so I'm clear, is it a racist or anti-Semitic statement to say "the Nazi party is an anti-Semitic organization"?

Is it, or isn't it?

Your hypotheticals about the NAACP continue to be absurd because they include a racial slur. It would absolutely be racist for someone who isn't white to say "the GOP is a bunch of ignorant honkies," for the same reason, notwithstanding the fact that some of its members are not white.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Basically we're just down to a semantic thing, I just think your usage here is extremely unusual and that's what caused all of us to jump on it thinking you were saying something more common and more stupid ("liberals are the real racists!").

Your comment is just a statement. It's not a racist one unless you say he hates black people because they're dumb, or because he's white, or some other content that attributes characteristics to people because of their race.

Obviously you're free to your own use of language, just be aware that I read a whole lot about race-related topics, both professionally (I'm a historian) and in online forums, and I've never your definition for a racist statement. But since you're also not making the moral judgment that someone who makes racist statements are racists themselves, it's not really a bad position, just an unusual one.

This is more than fair. I am just confused by what these people are saying, because they're imputing racism to a statement that is not racist within any definition of that word I have ever heard. Moreover, I reject the idea of expanding the definition of "racism" to include statements like the ones he is calling racist, because it would effectively take away the clear meaning of the word.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No? If I joke and say, 'The NAACP is a bunch of n1ggers haha', that's not a racist joke, simply because I refered to the NAACP and not anyone in particular? That is one massive stretch of logic and accepted use of 'racist' terminology.

If you say the NAACP is a bunch of n****rs, yes, you're onviously being racist. But that's not what was said in the joke. No one called the Republicans a racial slur. They said they were racist. A better comparison would be substituting the NAACP out for the Republicans in the original joke: "The NAACP are happy to have a party with black people drowning." Now, this obviously doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's a fair comparison for what was said about the Republicans; it's identical language save the group being slandered. But it's not racist. It's implying that the NAACP doesn't care about black people, not based on the race of the NAACP, but because of their membership in that organization.

You continually use "racist" to refer to any statements about race, and that's just an absolutely incorrect use of language. The fact that you can't see a difference between calling a group of people "n****rs" and calling a group of people racist is frankly shocking, and just illustrates a lack of comprehension of what the word "racist" actually means. You have cited examples where you use language such as "racist against Reps" and "racist against my buddy," and neither one of those uses of the word "racist" make any sense. Other people seem to be willing to give you a pass for using the word in a way that it was never intended to be used, but I will not. You don't get to have your own definition of "racist." If you want to remain willfully ignorant about what the word actually means, that's your right, but don't act so shocked when everyone else is baffled by your adherence to an incorrect definition. An inability to communicate effectively stifles all opportunity for further conversation.

 

[werepossum]

Republicans aren't a race though. If I made a joke that implied everyone from Texas was racist, am I telling a racist joke? No, because Texan isn't a race. You can say that it was a bigoted joke; it's treating all Republicans as racists, which is a bigoted stance to take against a group that includes people of all races. But not all bigotry is racism. If the group being denigrated by the comments isn't a race, it is not racism.

The Democrat Party and the main stream media (but I repeat myself) have made it a central theme that the Republicans ARE a race, an exclusively white party going out of its way to alienate (read: don't bribe with goodies) all minorities.

I personally wouldn't call it a racist statement, I'd just call it his bias showing. As always, note that he didn't get fired for saying it, he got fired for letting the non-elites HEAR him say it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The Democrat Party and the main stream media (but I repeat myself) have made it a central theme that the Republicans ARE a race, an exclusively white party going out of its way to alienate (read: don't bribe with goodies) all minorities.

I personally wouldn't call it a racist statement, I'd just call it his bias showing. As always, note that he didn't get fired for saying it, he got fired for letting the non-elites HEAR him say it.

Don't get me wrong; I think it was a bigoted statement to make and I think a bureau chief at a news organization, even Yahoo News, would have better sense than to say such inflammatory things. It was a stupid thig to do, he should've realized it and held his tongue, now he's paying the price.

 

[davmat787]

Yes. He said Republicans are racist. How does that make him racist? If I say that Republicans are homophobes, am I being homophobic?

No, that would make you a homophobaphobe.

To be serious however, it would also be inaccurate and a comment based on stereotype, since obviously not all Republicans are homophobes. So if you were to make that statement, I guess it would make you what? Ignorant? Not sure what is fair and accurate, and don't really care, I just wanted to be able to say "homophobaphobe".

Now, if the author of this comment was from foxnews.com, I really doubt the comment would be defended with the level of nuance we are seeing in this thread. If nothing else, we know it would then be racist because an assumed conservative authored it.

 

[werepossum]

No reports of any drowning, so he is lying for one, and why would only black people be drowning?

It's well known in proggie circles that salt water is racist. (It's full of salt, and salt is white, so it's racist.) Also most fresh water, although fresh water is predominantly sexist. Even brackish water needs some time in re-education and sensitivity training.

I doubt this is a joke anyway, as it's a central tenant of proggie dogma that Republicans are racists who want to kill all people who aren't white AND rich and who celebrate when any people who aren't white AND rich die. It's important to remember though that jusssst until he said this on a hot mic, this man was another of the progressive warriors who we are always told are capable of being completely fair and unbiased because they are professionals.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Democrat Party and the main stream media (but I repeat myself) have made it a central theme that the Republicans ARE a race, an exclusively white party going out of its way to alienate (read: don't bribe with goodies) all minorities.

Yeh, voting is a Goodie, for sure. And public assistance is a Goodie, too, even though the majority of recipients are white... Unearned wealth in the form of inheritance is a Goodie, also largely the realm of white people...

Any other Goodies you want to talk about?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Republicans self-identify as 89% white. To say that they are the party of white is NOT a stretch of the truth.

 

[cybrsage]

Republicans self-identify as 89% white. To say that they are the party of white is NOT a stretch of the truth.

This is the newest poll I could find by Gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/Republican-Base-Heavily-White-Conservative-Religious.aspx

It says 89% of the GOP is white (non hispanic) and the DNC is 65% white (non hispanic). They also appear to be the party of white too.

EDIT: There is also a problem with the chart - the total in the DNC column is 101% The rest add up to 100%

 

[davmat787]

Check the bottom demographic, 63 + 26 = 89, unless I am missing something he is correct.

What is interesting however is that at least 1 in 4 Republicans say they are not conservative, and the number would no doubt be higher if they broke the other races into conservative/non-conservative as they did whites, which appears to be the source of your error, unless I am missing something again.

 

[cybrsage]

DOH! You are right! It is late, my math failed. I will edit it. Take note that the DNC total is 101%...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I've been asked basically the same question 4 or 5 times in this thread, I've answered it. It's my opinion that it was racist. My answer isn't going to change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

 

[monovillage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

I'm also pining for the fjords.

Rosie the riveter and Sandra_Riveted.

http://nakeddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rosie_Riveter_Sandra_Rivete.jpg

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There is also a problem with the chart - the total in the DNC column is 101% The rest add up to 100%

That's fairly common in these types of polls given that they're rounding to the nearest whole number. 10.5 + 11.5 = 22, but if you round off both numbers first (11 + 12) you get 23. Without getting into decimals, polls are frequently going to suffer from these minor rounding errors.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'm also pining for the fjords.

Rosie the riveter and Sandra_Riveted.

http://nakeddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rosie_Riveter_Sandra_Rivete.jpg

Stay classy, GOP. Way to ensure no independent women will vote for your party this fall . . . Better luck next time!

 

[werepossum]

Yeh, voting is a Goodie, for sure. And public assistance is a Goodie, too, even though the majority of recipients are white... Unearned wealth in the form of inheritance is a Goodie, also largely the realm of white people...

Any other Goodies you want to talk about?

Speaks volumes that you think feel inheriting is a Goodie. All money belongs to Government, eh Comrade? And therefore anything Government doesn't seize is a gift. Also speaks volumes that you feel requiring identification removes the right to vote - but I guess if you feel Democrats should have the right to vote multiple times, that might make sense.

I'm also pining for the fjords.

Rosie the riveter and Sandra_Riveted.

http://nakeddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rosie_Riveter_Sandra_Rivete.jpg

Fucking. Awesome. I am SO stealing that!