Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
White Guys Talking Race
Posted by: McQ on Monday, April 16, 2007

Oliver Willis tries to apply a version of the "chickenhawk" argument to race. Just another example of the left trying to be the final arbiter on who can discuss what subject.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What exactly did he have a problem with that your were discussing? He doesn’t put out a single counterpoint. Seems his only problem is that your white guys. Whose the racist here?

and i loved this line "And I’m not saying white people, especially men,... " Especially men? Should we add sexism to this as well?
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
"And I’m not saying white people, especially men,... "
More to the point, he’s actually saying precisely what he’s denying in that sentence.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m not going to go overboard writing about this stuff because then I become ghettoized as "the black blogger who writes about racial stuff"...
Whew! He sure dodged that bullet.
 
Written By: Douglas Black
URL: http://
Glad to see I wasn’t alone in that perception, Bruce.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
His link showing "the idea that the racial playing field is remotely close to level is redunkulous" (what, no spell checker?) starts off like this:
LOS ANGELES - Racial disparity in cancer rates and outcomes may be driven by genetics as well as socioeconomic factors, U.S. researchers said on Sunday.

Minorities are much more likely to develop and die from cancer than the general U.S. population, with previous research pointing to lack of health insurance, poverty, cultural barriers, and limited access to good medical care as causes.

“What is emerging now is a science of health disparities — biological factors, genetic factors that can enhance the aggressiveness of cancer are being documented,” said Carlos Casiano, a professor in microbiology and molecular genetics at Loma Linda University in California.
So this latest study points towards genetic factors, in addition to social factors previously identified.

So we have genetic and social causes. What are the social causes?

At this point, I don’t think overt racism is part of the social causes, unless we consider black racism attacking "oreos" as part of that overt racism. The main cause of black social failure is a result of the black subculture, as Cosby realizes.

Willis ain’t Cosbyian, at least if this blog entry is typical.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I wish that people would stop linking, approvingly or not, to the stupidest blogger on the left side of the blogosphere. Then again, I’m not above pointing and laughing, so maybe he’s worth linking for at least the comic value.
 
Written By: physics geek
URL: http://physicsgeek.mu.nu
And I’m not saying white people, especially men, shouldn’t talk about race at all because they should in order to add to the conversation. I’m just saying that the posture of so many - the poor oppressed white guy who’s not allowed to express himself - is kind of ridiculous when so much of this country is designed specifically for you.
Just what century are you living in? If anything the Duke rape case should show the hypocrisy of the statement. White men designed the greatest political system know to man. More than half a million died to end slavery. The two Anglo democracies, Britain and the United States put an end to the world wide slave trade. White men brought freedom and modernity to much of the world.

In the middle of the 20th century things turned 180 degrees. White men became a pariah. Applying today’s morality to the past, women, people of color, and others castigated white males for the actions of our forefathers. Today white men have to walk on eggshells, fearful of doing or saying anything that might offend anyone who is not a white male, the ‘protected classes’. Look what happened to Don Imus. In contrast the ‘protected classes’ are above reproach, even by one of their own. Bill Cosby was excoriated for his accurate analysis of much of Black society.

We fought a Civil War and rode “Freedom Buses” to end slavery and discrimination. We failed. Bigotry is alive and well in America. It’s target is now White Males.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
people of color
Love that term.

Back in the day, colored meant black. But now we have people of color, which means everyone but white people (perhaps that covers asians as well, since it’s not clear they are a protect species). After all, it’s important to not discriminate when not descriminating, even though that means discriminating against white folks . . . but that’s OK since they enjoy such privledge.

White is the absence of color, black is the sum of all colors (which reverses, when we start talking about the visual electromagnetic spectrum).

I’m not actually white, however. I’m mostly a tanish color. Parts of me are dang light tan, but still not quite white.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Bruce, you sound pretty rational on the podcast so I don’t know why you come off so bad in print. But what I was referring to was three guys who are white discussing what blacks should and should not feel and how the poor white guy is being picked on, without any sort of irony to it. Similarly it would be nutty for me to discuss with a bunch of black people what its like for a white person, wouldn’t it?

Bigotry is alive and well in America. It’s target is now White Males.
See, that’s kind of my point. Who will speak up for the white man?
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Bruce, you sound pretty rational on the podcast so I don’t know why you come off so bad in print.
This is how Ollie tells you to disregard everything he writes after this statement.
See, that’s kind of my point. Who will speak up for the white man?
For a well off, upper middle class loafer who lives in his parent’s basement, I guess you are a good spokesperson for the downtrodden black.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
Similarly it would be nutty for me to discuss with a bunch of black people what its like for a white person, wouldn’t it?
Perhaps or perhaps not. You could get it right or not. As a white guy, I can pick a number of black guys (and some black women) I’d rather have speaking for me than some white guys.

As an example: I’d rather have Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowall, or Sec. Rice speak for me than Ted Kennedy or Charles Schumer.

Skin color doesn’t dictate experience, it only influences it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Bruce, you sound pretty rational on the podcast so I don’t know why you come off so bad in print.
You ought to ask yourself the same question.
But what I was referring to was three guys who are white discussing what blacks should and should not feel and how the poor white guy is being picked on, without any sort of irony to it. Similarly it would be nutty for me to discuss with a bunch of black people what its like for a white person, wouldn’t it?
Where did I discuss what it was like to be a black person or what a black person should feel, Oliver?

I challenge you to produce such a quote.

We talked about free speech, the FCC, Media Matters, double standards, the left and the "reality based community". Unless those are all now new code words for a black person and how they should feel, you’re, as usual, completely misrepresenting our conversation.

I found it both interesting and amusing, however, that you decided to inject race into it and make a "chickenhawk" argument out of it rather than addressing the issues we actually did bring up.

But hey, thanks for listening in on the podcast. Next time, however, try writing about what we said and not what you thought we said.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m talking about the segment where the caller called in and you guys discussed race and how come this guy gets to say that and one other guy doesn’t - are you saying that didn’t happen? Come on.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
He is just pissed that Bill Maher is reaming him out.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Ah, you’re talking about the Blog Talk Radio segment, not the Sunday podcast, not that it matters:
I’m talking about the segment where the caller called in and you guys discussed race and how come this guy gets to say that and one other guy doesn’t - are you saying that didn’t happen?
Are you denying that isn’t the case?
"Comparing Don Imus’ language with hip-hop artists’ poetic expression is misguided and inaccurate and feeds into a mind-set that can be a catalyst for unwarranted, rampant censorship," rap mogul Russell Simmons said in a statement Friday. Busdriver, a West Coast rapper, claimed that " ’bitch’ or ’ho’ can be terms of endearment." Snoop Dogg himself explained that gangsta rappers "are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ’hood that ain’t doing sh—. . . . These are two separate things."
However, the point made wasn’t made on the basis of race (you, as usual, injected that) but instead on the basis of free speech. The double standard on speech is what was being discussed and how we should all accept the fact that as a part of a country that values free speech, we should understand that means accepting speech we don’t like or of which we don’t approve. And that means for everyone.

Do you disagree? Do you believe some of us out here have special dispensation to speak freely and others don’t?

Now to your claim: I still challenge you to produce a quote in which I discuss what it was like to be a black person or what a black person should feel?

For those of you who would like to help him in this endeavor, the link is here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I actually agree with you more than you think (I don’t think one group should use slurs while another shouldn’t), but again, I thought the lack of self-awareness in the discussion was pretty telling.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
I actually agree with you more than you think (I don’t think one group should use slurs while another shouldn’t), but again, I thought the lack of self-awareness in the discussion was pretty telling.
What’s pretty telling is this is the third time you’ve made an unsubstantiated allegation and refused to back it up.

In crude terms, this is "put up or shut up" time, Oliver.

Produce a quote in which I discuss what it is like to be a black person or discuss what a black person should feel (your initial claim). That will substantiate your claim of "lack of awareness".

Until you do, this claim of yours has the substance your stuff usually has: none.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ: There is a double standard out there and it all has to do with the color of your skin as to what you can say and get away with. And I just don’t buy the argument that if Snoop Dogg says it it’s entertainment but if Don Imus says it it’s a firing offense.
—-
Caller: See, the sense that will be raised ... you can’t censor rap, that’s part of their culture, that’s part of their heritage, man. You can’t stifle their creativitiy.

McQ: Well that’s the whole point.
—-

Again I say: do I think you guys aren’t "allowed" to talk about these things? No. But like I said, ignoring the fact that it’s two white guys discussing how racial language is taken is kind of like the elephant in the room (and ditto if two black guys were discussing what is taken as a racial epithet against a white person, sure you talk about it but I would also acknowledge that I’m not white and maybe I see it differently because of that).
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
McQ: There is a double standard out there and it all has to do with the color of your skin as to what you can say and get away with. And I just don’t buy the argument that if Snoop Dogg says it it’s entertainment but if Don Imus says it it’s a firing offense.
—-
Caller: See, the sense that will be raised ... you can’t censor rap, that’s part of their culture, that’s part of their heritage, man. You can’t stifle their creativitiy.

McQ: Well that’s the whole point.
And this is supposed to support your contention that I’m "discuss[ing] what it is like to be a black person or discuss what a black person should feel?"

Not even close, Oliver. Not even close.

The context of that discussion is our contention that nothing said by anyone should be censured. The "whole point" was to say that Snoop Dogg shouldn’t be censured nor should rap. The "whole point" was to say we would be against that, but we’re equally against Imus getting the media "death" penalty for what Snoop Dogg routinely says and passes off as art. The "whole point" was to say that the initial reaction is going to be to censure and we should resist that.

So again, how does this quote even come close to having me discuss what it is like to be a black person or what a black person should feel?

Hmmm?
Again I say: do I think you guys aren’t "allowed" to talk about these things? No. But like I said, ignoring the fact that it’s two white guys discussing how racial language is taken is kind of like the elephant in the room (and ditto if two black guys were discussing what is taken as a racial epithet against a white person, sure you talk about it but I would also acknowledge that I’m not white and maybe I see it differently because of that).
Well maybe you can tell me what is or isn’t taken as a racial epithet when what was said by Imus was obviously treated as such? And you can further tell us why Sharpton and Jackson showed up on the scene to exploit it? Why the Rutgers team felt it incumbent upon them to demand and apology?

And maybe you can tell us why such language which obviously denegrates women in general and black women especially is acceptable when Snoop Dogg says it but not when Imus says it.

Then tell us again why such nonsense is something that only black people understand and ’WGTR" shouldn’t really be discussing it even if you "aren’t saying they shouldn’t" while making a big deal about the fact they are?

Last, but not least, tell me again how this isn’t a racial form of the chickenhawk argument.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
As I said, it isn’t okay that Snoop Dogg does it, but its fallacious to tie it to Imus. Both are offenses of a sort, but not the same thing. Sharpton and Jackson made noise about Imus, but no black people elected them. It is the media who turns to them for "the black perspective" because they’re just too lazy to do otherwise.

I didn’t say this is something only blacks understand. I’m saying you guys talked about the issue in a vacuum as if black folks weren’t warranted in their outrage.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
As I said, it isn’t okay that Snoop Dogg does it, but its fallacious to tie it to Imus. Both are offenses of a sort, but not the same thing.
So what "offense" is it when either of them do it except being unacceptable speech? Why is it fallacious to argue they both are using unacceptable speech?

And note this - while it may be unacceptable, I don’t want it banned. I’d like to see the culture take care of this and not the government.
I didn’t say this is something only blacks understand. I’m saying you guys talked about the issue in a vacuum as if black folks weren’t warranted in their outrage.
We noted that the Rutgers team was very much entitled to feel outraged about the comment. So it sounds like we did, huh?

The rest of the show was spent talking about free speech, not race.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider