NPR you suck

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I do want to know though... do YOU think it is racist if you get a nervous instinct or feeling when you see a young man with baggy pants late at night... or if you see a Muslim in religious garb on your flight... or if you see Morty peering in your bedroom window?


(besides the last phrase it was a serious question)

I personally do not think it is racist. I think nervous feelings are natural in situations that you might not be 100% comfortable in. Now if you want to catagorize all young men in baggy pants as "thugs" and criminals, than yeah that is racist... if you want to kick Muslims off all flights, yup racist. But a natural feeling of nervousness in situations, I do not believe that to be racist.

How do you feel about my first paragraph?

I believe this is a pretty straight-forward question with a Yes (it is racist) or No (it is natural to feel nervous sometimes) answer.

Aaaannnnyyyway we can get an answer? Prove to us doubters that you can tackle a tough topic! (not that this is a tough topic or anything)

If you answer honestly I'll give you a bonus prize!!

[clyde]

Honula was right about her.




I'm leaving.

[Riot]

For all those here whose goal is to justify keeping the ridiculous fires of "Muslims attacked us on 9-11!" burning:

Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic:

Juan Williams: Busted
23 Oct 2010 11:26 am

Juan Williams: On general suspicion and nervousness around people wearing "Muslim garb":

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 get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts.

On general suspicion and nervousness around people with dark skin, in a TNR colloquium about whether it was justified, given the objective racial statistics of who is likeliest to commit crime:

Neither black nor white store owners are in business to display the virtues of admitting people of all colors, creeds, and fashions to their stores. They are in business to make money. I would want to take precautions to prevent robbery; I would look closely at people entering the store. The race of a potential customer would be one factor among many to be considered as I girded myself against thieves.

But in Washington and almost all other major cities, blacks do patronize jewelry stores. A jeweler in Beverly Hills who closed his door to heavily bejeweled Mr. T would be foolishly closing his cash register. Unless I am a racist, race and age cannot be the sole deciding factors in calculating whom I will and will not let into my store. And I certainly would not close my door to, say, all young black men - not even to those who are casually dressed and behaving nervously. I would act cautiously in dealing with them, as I would with an antic, strangely dressed white man.

As a cabdriver I would apply the same considerations. Discrimination can be used judiciously. I would certainly exclude one class of people: those who struck me as dangerous. Nervous-looking people with bulges under their jackets would not be picked up; nor would those who looked obviously drunk or stoned. It all comes down to a subjective judgment of what dangerous people look like. This does not necessarily entail a racial judgment. Cabdrivers who don't pick up young black men as a rule are making a poorly informed decision. Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment.

The elevator question is disingenuous. I suspect you are suggesting that I am a white woman getting into an apartment building elevator with a strange black man. Of course, black women have just as much to fear as white women. Nevertheless, black women living in black neighborhoods ride elevators with black men frequently, and do so without being raped. In this situation and all others, common sense is my constant guard. Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.

Notice that Williams uses facts and evidence to make these judgments. Yet the facts and evidence in the case he was discussing on Fox News prove that there is no statistical reason whatever to get nervous around those in Muslim garb on airplanes - since no terror attacks in America have been conducted by people in that attire. Yet that factor - and that alone - is what he invokes to justify his fear. This is anti-religious bigotry in its purest, clearest form.

In stark contrast, in the case of generalizing about nervousness and suspicion of thievery toward African-American men, Williams is far more circumspect. He takes statistical evidence into account; he looks for aspects in a human being that, independent of their race, might make one suspicious. He rules out judgment based on their clothing or their "acting nervously". But when it comes to Muslims in traditional garb, he feels nervous because of that fact alone, and associates them immediately with a terror suspect involving Islam in general - not radical Jihadism - as at war with the West.

So generalized nervousness around people wearing Muslim garb (who statistically have committed zero acts of terrorism in the US) is not bigotry; but generalized nervousness and suspicion around young black men (who statistically were much more likely to commit the crimes in question in the thought experiment in the colloquium) is racism.

Why, in other words, did Williams not say about those in Muslim garb:

Common sense becomes bigotry when religious attire becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.

Why does he have this extreme double standard? And how dare he use his own record in defending civil rights for African-Americans to justify his bigoted prejudice against devout Muslims?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. He is on Fox News, pandering to the anti-Muslim bigot, Bill O'Reilly. And Roger Ailes rewards him for that role, as a "liberal" justifying anti-Muslim bigotry, because pandering to bigotry makes for good ratings and good politics.

[Riot]

And here's an interesting viewpoint from Glenn Greenwald at Salon. In part:

And then there's the more amorphous but arguably more significant self-justifying benefit that comes from condemning "Muslims" for their violent, extremist ways. I'm always amazed when I receive e-mails from people telling me that I fail to understand how Islam is a uniquely violent, supremely expansionist culture that is intrinsically menacing. The United States is a country with a massive military and nuclear stockpile, that invaded and has occupied two Muslim countries for almost a full decade, that regularly bombs and drones several others, that currently is threatening to attack one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, that imposed a sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, that slaughters innocent people on a virtually daily basis, that has interfered in and controlled countries around the world since at least the middle of the last century, that has spent decades arming and protecting every Israeli war with its Muslim neighbors and enabling a four-decade-long brutal occupation, and that erected a worldwide regime of torture, abduction and lawless detention, much of which still endures. Those are just facts.

But if we all agree to sit around and point over there -- hey, can you believe those primitive Muslims and how violent and extremist they are -- the reality of what we do in the world will fade blissfully away. Even better, it will be transformed from violent aggression into justified self-defense, and then we'll not only free ourselves of guilt, but feel proud and noble because of it. As is true with all cultures, there are obviously demented, psychopathic, violent extremists among Muslims. And there's no shortage of such extremists in our own culture either. One would think we'd be more interested in the extremists among us, but by obsessively focusing on Them, we are able to blind ourselves to the pathologies that drive our own actions. And that self-cleansing, self-justifying benefit -- which requires the preservation of the Muslim-as-Threat mythology -- is probably more valuable than all the specific, pragmatic benefits described above. All this over a "menace" (Terrorism) that killed a grand total of 25 noncombatant Americans last year (McClatchy: "undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism").

[Antitrust32]

Well I believe I have a better chance of getting my imaginary pud caught in my zipper than Riot answering a question with her own opinion.

& those two articles posted were absolute shi.t.

[SOREHOOF]

The only thing I got from those articles is that people in "Muslim garb" are the least likely to do you any harm. The terrorists know this. They wouldn't be on a "mission" dressed to attract attention. We should only be suspicious of people who are dressed "normally". Completely without regard to their ethnicity.

[Rileyoriley]

I can honestly say I'd rather be on a plane with a thug in baggy pants, an 80 year old woman, people in muslim garb and Morty than with Riot.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

And here's an interesting viewpoint from Glenn Greenwald at Salon. In part:

Riot,Sweetie....would you like to meet me in Louisville in a few weeks?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

[Rileyoriley]

Both my conscious and unconscious mind would rather fly with thugs and muslims than Riot.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

Let's do an experiment and see if any one group committs more crime than another. Let's check out the most wanted criminals in Los Angeles:

http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

Do a good inspection of the list. It's beyond what even the most racially biased person would ever imagine in their wildest dreams.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

Danny...enough with the quoting of intellectual hypocracy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/2



the last sentence is absolutely correct.

Good article.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I believe this is a pretty straight-forward question with a Yes (it is racist) or No (it is natural to feel nervous sometimes) answer.

Aaaannnnyyyway we can get an answer? Prove to us doubters that you can tackle a tough topic! (not that this is a tough topic or anything)

If you answer honestly I'll give you a bonus prize!!

She's not going to answer a question that will undermine her position. It's that simple. And yet she can't figure out why everyone gives her a hard time.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

She's not going to answer a question that will undermine her position. It's that simple. And yet she can't figure out why everyone gives her a hard time.

You had a complete, multi-post argument with yourself discussing what you imagined I thought or said. I wasn't even involved <vbg>

You're really in no position to throw any stones about someone elses "position"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

You had a complete, multi-post argument with yourself discussing what you imagined I thought or said. I wasn't even involved <vbg>

You're really in no position to throw any stones about someone elses "position"

You are quite a character, to say the least.

[Riot]

Here's a good comment from Dave Sirota at "Open Left"

As Glenn Greenwald correctly notes, Williams was not just privately admitting his bigoted impulses, nor was he stating them publicly so as to say how they are wrong - he was acting on them by going on national TV and suggesting that they are AOK. Indeed, during the O'Reilly interview and afterwards in his FoxNews.com post, Williams endorses his own impulses - he doesn't really refute them.

That's right, Williams restated that publicly declaring his fear of Muslims - and further insisting that someone wearing any Muslim garb means they are automatically "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims" (ie. potentially disloyal to America) - "is not a bigoted statement." And to cover himself, Williams then weakly insisted that "I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone's constitutional rights."

Think of the message in that: According to Juan Williams, it's absolutely OK to be a racist, as long as you don't go the extra mile and try to violate someone's rights.

IMHO, it's not OK to be a bigot, even if you are not violating someone's rights. And to argue otherwise is to take natural bigoted impulses and legitimize them as OK.