What Makes People Vote Republican?
02 Dec 2010, 2:27 pm
xenon13 wrote:
Juan Williams said that failure to harrass people because of their dress and religious beliefs and appearance in general will cause mass casualties in Western countries. This is a bad thing to say, worse than anything Rick Sanchez said that got him the chopper.
That is not what he said and you know it and yes I'm either accusing you of lieing or not doing any research at all.
In making this confession, Mr. Williams undoubtedly spoke for many Americans who are wrestling with similar feelings. His words could be offensive to some, if construed as an endorsement of negative stereotyping. But the full broadcast makes clear that Mr. Williams intended the opposite. To be sure, he struggled to get his point across, because host Bill O'Reilly kept interrupting him. But Mr. Williams did manage to observe that "we don't want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they hear rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy."
In short, Mr. Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory. His reward was to lose his job, just as Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod lost hers over purportedly racist remarks that turned out to be anything but. NPR management appears to have learned nothing from that rush to judgment. "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality," Mr. Williams told Mr. O'Reilly. NPR, alas, has proved his point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03973.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/ ... eiss-bush/
02 Dec 2010, 2:28 pm
xenon13 wrote:
Juan Williams said that failure to harrass people because of their dress and religious beliefs and appearance in general will cause mass casualties in Western countries. This is a bad thing to say, worse than anything Rick Sanchez said that got him the chopper.
That isn't what he said at all. He acknowledge it as a weakness of his and people in general. He didn't encourage it at all.
02 Dec 2010, 4:35 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
[Yes ancestor of person A did something to ancestor of person B, get over it! Person B is not his/her ancestor and is innocent of whatever slight that occurred. Republicans don't even want race to be given in college entry applications, because if they don't know what race someone is there is no chance for someone to be discriminatory towards that person based on race.
The best that can be said of that attitude is that it is naiive, the worst that it is deliberately and viciously obtuse. There have been a dozen points in my life already - and I'm only 34 - where I would have been in extremely sad shape had I not received assistance from my parents and relatives. I would not have been able to afford college, I might have ended up homeless once or twice, etc. If my parents were illiterate slaves coming out of slavery with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs, they would not have been able to help me - and the disadvantages I incurred would have been passed on to my own children. If I had started out in a worse school, I might not have received adequate sex ed to keep me from fooling around and getting pregnant, or adequate drug prevention programs to keep me from getting addicted to something. I probably wouldn't have had access to AP programs; I know that several of my classmates in college did not have access to those programs because they came from poor schools, and they had to take classes that I didn't because of it. In short, I have been tremendously priviledged in my life because I come from a middle-class family, and because I have almost never had anyone making negative assumptions about me because of my race.
quite frankly, for a group that started out with literally NOTHING 150 or so years ago - just a few generations - African Americans have made tremendous progress - but that's not to say that we should pretend that kids from poor backgrounds shouldn't be given a helping hand by society in order to help them rise above their circumstances.
If you want to make financial aid and affirmative action means-based instead of race-based, so that poor white kids from Appalachia with hick accents can get help overcoming a disadvantaged origin, too, I'm all for that - but most conservatives are against giving any help to anyone at all.
02 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm
LKL wrote:
If you want to make financial aid and affirmative action means-based instead of race-based, so that poor white kids from Appalachia with hick accents can get help overcoming a disadvantaged origin, too, I'm all for that - but most conservatives are against giving any help to anyone at all.
I am amused that the Republicans, the party that makes such a big deal about having Christian values, is in reality the party that favors rich people at the expense of everyone else. It seems to me what Republicans actually do is the exact opposite of what Jesus says to do. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that?
_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008
Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 02 Dec 2010, 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
02 Dec 2010, 5:49 pm
Juan Williams said the following...
Quote:
"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a 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."
Let's break it down. "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality". It' saying that this political correctness is acting much like a kind of paralysing agent used by a predator to immobilise the prey before the prey is devoured. This "reality" of which he speaks is that these horrible Muslims plan on making prey out of innocent Westerners, and that this self-paralysis with political correctness will make such predation far easier and more likely.
This interpretation is bolstered further as he continues. "I see people who are in Muslim garb..." - they are announcing in fact that they are predators ready to devour but oh no, the PC paralysis prevents people from taking corrective measures to counteract the predator. The answer is massive profiling and harassment and denouncing those who oppose this as enemies of the people who are paralysing everyone to allow those horrible Muslims to destroy and devour.
I don't know from where this idea comes that he felt ashamed of his fear when he clearly says that this fear is a good thing and that the real danger is to not have this fear, that this is caused by another counterveiling fear which is fear of the PC police and of being branded an evil racist, and that the PC race thus are setting people up to be killed horribly by the Muslims.
02 Dec 2010, 7:41 pm
xenon13 wrote:
Juan Williams said the following...
Let's break it down. "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality". It' saying that this political correctness is acting much like a kind of paralysing agent used by a predator to immobilise the prey before the prey is devoured. This "reality" of which he speaks is that these horrible Muslims plan on making prey out of innocent Westerners, and that this self-paralysis with political correctness will make such predation far easier and more likely.
This interpretation is bolstered further as he continues. "I see people who are in Muslim garb..." - they are announcing in fact that they are predators ready to devour but oh no, the PC paralysis prevents people from taking corrective measures to counteract the predator. The answer is massive profiling and harassment and denouncing those who oppose this as enemies of the people who are paralysing everyone to allow those horrible Muslims to destroy and devour.
I don't know from where this idea comes that he felt ashamed of his fear when he clearly says that this fear is a good thing and that the real danger is to not have this fear, that this is caused by another counterveiling fear which is fear of the PC police and of being branded an evil racist, and that the PC race thus are setting people up to be killed horribly by the Muslims.
Quote:
"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a 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."
Let's break it down. "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality". It' saying that this political correctness is acting much like a kind of paralysing agent used by a predator to immobilise the prey before the prey is devoured. This "reality" of which he speaks is that these horrible Muslims plan on making prey out of innocent Westerners, and that this self-paralysis with political correctness will make such predation far easier and more likely.
This interpretation is bolstered further as he continues. "I see people who are in Muslim garb..." - they are announcing in fact that they are predators ready to devour but oh no, the PC paralysis prevents people from taking corrective measures to counteract the predator. The answer is massive profiling and harassment and denouncing those who oppose this as enemies of the people who are paralysing everyone to allow those horrible Muslims to destroy and devour.
I don't know from where this idea comes that he felt ashamed of his fear when he clearly says that this fear is a good thing and that the real danger is to not have this fear, that this is caused by another counterveiling fear which is fear of the PC police and of being branded an evil racist, and that the PC race thus are setting people up to be killed horribly by the Muslims.
Your interpretation leaves out the context of the statement, in addition your misconstruing his implications on political correctness. Please point to me where he says this fear is good? Juan spent the segment arguing against O'Reilly's continued insistence on generalization being necessary. I will supply you with the full transcript so you can't claim ignorance of the context. The link is below the quote.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm4hZaEqawk[/youtube]
Quote:
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
I mean, look, Bill, 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.
But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –
O’REILLY: Well, there isn’t any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
O’REILLY: And it’s not about — it’s about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can’t really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –
O’REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.
WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.
O’REILLY: But it’s not at that level. It doesn’t rise near to that level.
WILLIAMS: Correct. That’s — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?
O’REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?
WILLIAMS: No, you don’t — but you got to be — this is what Barbara Walters was saying –
O’REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I’m not doing it anymore. I’m not doing that anymore.
WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.
O’REILLY: But I’m not going to say, oh, it’s only a few. It’s only a tiny bit. It’s not, Juan. It’s whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.
Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.
I mean, look, Bill, 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.
But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –
O’REILLY: Well, there isn’t any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
O’REILLY: And it’s not about — it’s about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can’t really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –
O’REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.
WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.
O’REILLY: But it’s not at that level. It doesn’t rise near to that level.
WILLIAMS: Correct. That’s — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?
O’REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?
WILLIAMS: No, you don’t — but you got to be — this is what Barbara Walters was saying –
O’REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I’m not doing it anymore. I’m not doing that anymore.
WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.
O’REILLY: But I’m not going to say, oh, it’s only a few. It’s only a tiny bit. It’s not, Juan. It’s whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.
Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/npr ... -williams/
I suggest you go and read the full transcript
02 Dec 2010, 10:18 pm
When does he say fear is good? He says that Political Correctness paralyses people before a reality that is that there are horrible Muslims out to kill Westerners. This paralysis will make it easier for this to happen, he says. In this way, he says that fear is good, that the fear will permit people to stop the Muslims instead of being paralysed by being PC thus allowing the attacks to succeed. He can say whatever he wants about "it's not a war against Islam", but he said what he said, that profiling and harrassment is required and so-called political correctness must be eschewed for the purpose of survival before these predators.
02 Dec 2010, 10:28 pm
xenon13 wrote:
When does he say fear is good? He says that Political Correctness paralyses people before a reality that is that there are horrible Muslims out to kill Westerners. This paralysis will make it easier for this to happen, he says. In this way, he says that fear is good, that the fear will permit people to stop the Muslims instead of being paralysed by being PC thus allowing the attacks to succeed. He can say whatever he wants about "it's not a war against Islam", but he said what he said, that profiling and harrassment is required and so-called political correctness must be eschewed for the purpose of survival before these predators.
No he does not, he claims political correctness is preventing discussion about these feelings that people have. He never said that nor was it implied.(referring to the part in bold)
Quote:
I don't know from where this idea comes that he felt ashamed of his fear when he clearly says that this fear is a good thing and that the real danger is to not have this fear, that this is caused by another counterveiling fear which is fear of the PC police and of being branded an evil racist, and that the PC race thus are setting people up to be killed horribly by the Muslims.
This is what I was referring to you claimed he said that this fear was good, i disagreed. He stated that it was present and needed to be controlled.
02 Dec 2010, 11:31 pm
@ xenon13
Face the facts, you are wrong on this. I've seen the full debate that got Juan fired, I think ikorack copied it and included the transcript.
Juan Williams firing was an example of intolerance and bigotry on the part of the left. The facts speak for themselves, no amount of arguing on your part will change the fact you are wrong on this issue.
02 Dec 2010, 11:47 pm
xenon13 wrote:
When does he say fear is good? He says that Political Correctness paralyses people before a reality that is that there are horrible Muslims out to kill Westerners. This paralysis will make it easier for this to happen, he says. In this way, he says that fear is good, that the fear will permit people to stop the Muslims instead of being paralysed by being PC thus allowing the attacks to succeed. He can say whatever he wants about "it's not a war against Islam", but he said what he said, that profiling and harrassment is required and so-called political correctness must be eschewed for the purpose of survival before these predators.
I don't know. It doesn't seem like he was implying anything like that in his actual words. He simply made the mistake of being too honest. A lot of people are afraid of really devout/fundamentalist Muslims, including most ordinary Muslims from around the world.
03 Dec 2010, 12:09 am
He said that political correctness is paralysing people before the Islamist peril. He then spoke of his un-PC response to seeing Muslims on an aircraft, as people he thinks represent that peril by openly flauting their supposed Islamic nature. The implication is clear - people should, people must, react like he does to protect against the predations of these Islamists - otherwise, they are paralysed thanks to political correctness. He said that as he reacted badly to people flauting their Islam, as he expressed his fear of these people, the obvious implication is for the authorities to be used to put under close scrutiny these open Muslims, to watch them closely and to effectively express the community's fear and defensive response. What does this mean? Profiling. Harassment. That's what it means in practice.
"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." - What is reality? The Islamist peril and the fact that this can be expressed through exploding passenger aircraft. Paralysis before this reality means that people will not act to prevent the explosion of aircraft, paralysed though they are. Why are they paralysed? Political correctness.
" I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a 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." Here he does the obligatory "I'm not a bigot", then as to confirm that the "reality" of which he spoke is that Muslims want to blow up aircraft, he said that if he sees people flauting their Islamic nature by wearing "Muslim garb", they are flaunting he says because "they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims", he "get worried", he "gets nervous". This worry is the first step to action to prevent these fiends from blowing up the plane, though many are paralysed by political correctness.
Thus it begins with worry and nervousness to counter the Muslim fiends, a worry and nervousness that is done despite the paralysing agent of PCism that has so many under its command. However, these things alone won't stop them. What is required is profiling and harassment. That's the bottom line.
03 Dec 2010, 1:14 am
marshall wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
When does he say fear is good? He says that Political Correctness paralyses people before a reality that is that there are horrible Muslims out to kill Westerners. This paralysis will make it easier for this to happen, he says. In this way, he says that fear is good, that the fear will permit people to stop the Muslims instead of being paralysed by being PC thus allowing the attacks to succeed. He can say whatever he wants about "it's not a war against Islam", but he said what he said, that profiling and harrassment is required and so-called political correctness must be eschewed for the purpose of survival before these predators.
I don't know. It doesn't seem like he was implying anything like that in his actual words. He simply made the mistake of being too honest. A lot of people are afraid of really devout/fundamentalist Muslims, including most ordinary Muslims from around the world.
marshall to add on to what you are saying MSNBC's Joe Scarbough & company also called the firing of Juan Williams outrageous.
http://www.examiner.com/the-view-in-nat ... statements
Newscast Media — On Wednesday, Juan Williams discovered an ally in Rev. Jesse Jackson who compared NPR’s firing of Williams to the Agriculture Department’s firing of Shirley Sherrod.
“NPR was wrong because they did not afford him freedom of speech,” Jackson said. “They did it in a way that was unfair. The context was he was arguing with Bill O’Reilly, saying why he should not be so virulently anti-Muslim. It reminded me so much of the case with Shirley Sherrod. They jumped so quick.”
Jackson continued to say, “They’ve martyred Juan, taking him to another level both with his resources and his authority as a journalist.”
Jackson suggested that NPR’s decision seized on his comments about Muslims as “a pretext” that was primarily motivated by ideology.
“I think that some of this predisposition towards Fox was the reason for the gotcha,” Jackson said. “If they did not want his point of view, they should have said, ‘When your contract is over, you do not fit into our scheme of things.’ And then (he’d) go gracefully and with dignity. But to fire him in that way, and then to suggest he should see a psychiatrist, it was beneath the character and reputation of NPR.”
Williams is now at FOX after being offered a $2 million deal by the network.
http://newscastmedia.com/blog/2010/10/2 ... -williams/
@ xenon13
Look you have Jesse Jackson blasting NPR over the firing.
03 Dec 2010, 4:31 am
xenon13 wrote:
He said that political correctness is paralysing people before the Islamist peril. He then spoke of his un-PC response to seeing Muslims on an aircraft, as people he thinks represent that peril by openly flauting their supposed Islamic nature. The implication is clear - people should, people must, react like he does to protect against the predations of these Islamists - otherwise, they are paralysed thanks to political correctness. He said that as he reacted badly to people flauting their Islam, as he expressed his fear of these people, the obvious implication is for the authorities to be used to put under close scrutiny these open Muslims, to watch them closely and to effectively express the community's fear and defensive response.
I heard an audio clip of him speaking, and I honestly didn't get that impression. His tone of voice was one of admitting to something he was a little ashamed of, not of self-righteousness. I think NPR was wrong to fire him, NBC was wrong to suspend Olberman, and all of the news orgs are wrong to presume to forbid their reporters from attending rallies or donating to political candidates. One's freedom of speech does not cease when participates in freedom of the press.
03 Dec 2010, 7:35 am
Inuyasha wrote:
“I think that some of this predisposition towards Fox was the reason for the gotcha,” Jackson said. “If they did not want his point of view, they should have said, ‘When your contract is over, you do not fit into our scheme of things.’ And then (he’d) go gracefully and with dignity. But to fire him in that way, and then to suggest he should see a psychiatrist, it was beneath the character and reputation of NPR.”
That is just what we should expect from the Pinko Stinko Michael Moor Liberals.
ruveyn
03 Dec 2010, 9:31 am
xenon13 wrote:
He said that political correctness is paralysing people before the Islamist peril. He then spoke of his un-PC response to seeing Muslims on an aircraft, as people he thinks represent that peril by openly flauting their supposed Islamic nature. The implication is clear - people should, people must, react like he does to protect against the predations of these Islamists - otherwise, they are paralysed thanks to political correctness. He said that as he reacted badly to people flauting their Islam, as he expressed his fear of these people, the obvious implication is for the authorities to be used to put under close scrutiny these open Muslims, to watch them closely and to effectively express the community's fear and defensive response. What does this mean? Profiling. Harassment. That's what it means in practice.
"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." - What is reality? The Islamist peril and the fact that this can be expressed through exploding passenger aircraft. Paralysis before this reality means that people will not act to prevent the explosion of aircraft, paralysed though they are. Why are they paralysed? Political correctness.
" I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a 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." Here he does the obligatory "I'm not a bigot", then as to confirm that the "reality" of which he spoke is that Muslims want to blow up aircraft, he said that if he sees people flauting their Islamic nature by wearing "Muslim garb", they are flaunting he says because "they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims", he "get worried", he "gets nervous". This worry is the first step to action to prevent these fiends from blowing up the plane, though many are paralysed by political correctness.
Thus it begins with worry and nervousness to counter the Muslim fiends, a worry and nervousness that is done despite the paralysing agent of PCism that has so many under its command. However, these things alone won't stop them. What is required is profiling and harassment. That's the bottom line.
"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." - What is reality? The Islamist peril and the fact that this can be expressed through exploding passenger aircraft. Paralysis before this reality means that people will not act to prevent the explosion of aircraft, paralysed though they are. Why are they paralysed? Political correctness.
" I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a 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." Here he does the obligatory "I'm not a bigot", then as to confirm that the "reality" of which he spoke is that Muslims want to blow up aircraft, he said that if he sees people flauting their Islamic nature by wearing "Muslim garb", they are flaunting he says because "they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims", he "get worried", he "gets nervous". This worry is the first step to action to prevent these fiends from blowing up the plane, though many are paralysed by political correctness.
Thus it begins with worry and nervousness to counter the Muslim fiends, a worry and nervousness that is done despite the paralysing agent of PCism that has so many under its command. However, these things alone won't stop them. What is required is profiling and harassment. That's the bottom line.
Admitting fear is not the same thing as being a bigot. Your continued insistence that his admission of fear automatically makes him for the kind of behavior that comes from that emotion is an error in your reason. He promoted self control not harassment and profiling, but to promote self control you first must discuss the emotions and behavior you intend to control as well as the behavior. You still back up your arguments with the same quote over and over again, shouldn't you be able to use a quote from another section of the transcript if your interpretation was really what he was trying to get across?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? |
11 Jul 2026, 4:07 pm |
| Why are people questioning my ability to consent to sex? |
10 Jul 2026, 2:11 pm |
