The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Good article on the whole racist everything thing

SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT!
By
Neal Boortz
@ September 18, 2009 8:20 AM Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

... Other than me, of course.

Here's your link to an article by Jesse Washington. Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. Washington says that all of these claims of racism out there are taking a word that once had some power and turning it into nothing more than a spitball. He quotes one John McWhorter, who studies race and language at the Manhattan Institute: "It gets to the point where we don't have a word to use to call people racist who actually are."

Now isn't this just exactly what I've been saying for about ten years here on the show? How many times have I gone over the differences between prejudice, bigotry and racism? Enough to make my listeners scream in agony, that's for sure.

Washington goes to Webster's Dictionary for the current definition: "Someone who believes in the inherent superiority of a particular race or is prejudiced against others."

Now while I'm thrilled that someone has actually spoken up about the overuse of the "R" word, I want to address this "prejudiced against others" thing. As I said, this is the current definition. Go back a few decades and the "or is prejudiced against others" bit is not there. Why? That would be because prejudice against other is ... well ... it's prejudice. The word means "pre-judging." People do that all the time, and it doesn't make one racist.

Now my little example here is sure to cause the more ignorant among my Nuze readers to call me a "racist." Like that really matters any more. OK ... you're standing at an ATM withdrawing a few hundred bucks because there's a shoe sale down the street. While you're waiting for the machine to give you your card back a young black male walks purposely towards you. His pants are bunched up around his ankles, he's wearing a hoodie. One hand is grabbing his crotch and the other is in a pocket. You are immediately concerned for your safety. You have pre-judged this situation and your considered judgment is that this young stud is not coming up to you to compliment your hair. There ... you pre-judged a young black male. Does that make you racist? Well; what if this young black male was wearing a business suit? What if he had a briefcase instead of his crotch in one hand, and an ATM card in the other? You're not alarmed, are you? But wait! I thought you were a racist because you showed prejudice against a young black male? But now here you are confronted by another young black male .. and suddenly you're not a racist any more? The explanation, of course, is the young black male in the hoodie was representative of one culture, the black male in the business suit was representative of another. Your prejudice is based on culture, not skin color. Hardly something to support a charge of racism, is it?

Anyway ... we're making progress here. At least some members of the MSM are starting to look at the overuse of this word and trying to set the record straight.

SuiNeko wrote:

Racist.

Jesus?

I have a hard time understanding why people come to the defense of folks like Neil Boortz. He has repeatedly displayed his racism on his show and in print, and any time it's pointed out, an alarming number of people scramble to find a symantic justification for ignoring his racially charged rhetoric.

Why? Why do people defend him, with snark or any other tactic? Is he someone you admire? Is he someone who's rhetoric pleases you?

These questions are not intended to be inflammatory or trollish. I am sincerely curious as to why people defend folks like Boortz.

However, I don't know that you can separate his positions from his racism. I don't think people are tired of it in the way you describe, either. It's still a powerful rallying cry in the Tea Party movement, and it finds itself comfortably ensconced in right wing talk radio, which is incredibly powerful and politically influential in our country.

Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage spring immediately to mind. Limbaugh's racism is well documented and well known. He is unapologetic about it, and his fans seem to eat it up. And, he has a great deal of influence over the Republican party.

Micheal Savage is much more blatant about it, and also has a large viewing and reading audience for his radio show and books.

The Tea Party movement is fueled and promoted by Right Wing radio and television, like Fox News. Fox, especially, is responsible for a huge portion of the marketing of the Tea Party movement and their events, as is talk radio. That's not just reporting happening in a vacuum. And racism is a rather strong undercurrent at those protests.

The Tea Party movement is the right wing's version of ANSWER. The difference is that elected republicans are embracing the Tea Party movement, and the left generally can't stand ANSWER and does everything it can to distance themselves from them.

Monty wrote:

Micheal Savage is much more blatant about it, and also has a large viewing and reading audience for his radio show and books.

Michael Savage is an ***, but in exactly what terms does he have a "very large" audience?

Herman Cain kicks ***.

Screeling wrote:

Herman Cain kicks ***.

Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation

Kaffis Mark V wrote:

Screeling wrote:

Herman Cain kicks ***.

Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation

For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is.

Screeling wrote:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:

Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation

For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is.

Replace Savage with Hannity for me. Hannity's guests (which are few and far between) are at least 3x his calibre.

DFK! wrote:

Screeling wrote:

For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is.

Replace Savage with Hannity for me. Hannity's guests (which are few and far between) are at least 3x his calibre.

You're a great American, DFK!

Author:	Nitefox [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:19 am ]
Post subject:	Good article on the whole racist everything thing
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9APDLM00 Now I got that article from Boortz's Neals Nuze. He does an excellent little write up as well. http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html Quote: SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT! By Neal Boortz @ September 18, 2009 8:20 AM Permalink \| Comments (28) \| TrackBacks (0) ... Other than me, of course. Here's your link to an article by Jesse Washington. Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. Washington says that all of these claims of racism out there are taking a word that once had some power and turning it into nothing more than a spitball. He quotes one John McWhorter, who studies race and language at the Manhattan Institute: "It gets to the point where we don't have a word to use to call people racist who actually are." Now isn't this just exactly what I've been saying for about ten years here on the show? How many times have I gone over the differences between prejudice, bigotry and racism? Enough to make my listeners scream in agony, that's for sure. Washington goes to Webster's Dictionary for the current definition: "Someone who believes in the inherent superiority of a particular race or is prejudiced against others." Now while I'm thrilled that someone has actually spoken up about the overuse of the "R" word, I want to address this "prejudiced against others" thing. As I said, this is the current definition. Go back a few decades and the "or is prejudiced against others" bit is not there. Why? That would be because prejudice against other is ... well ... it's prejudice. The word means "pre-judging." People do that all the time, and it doesn't make one racist. Now my little example here is sure to cause the more ignorant among my Nuze readers to call me a "racist." Like that really matters any more. OK ... you're standing at an ATM withdrawing a few hundred bucks because there's a shoe sale down the street. While you're waiting for the machine to give you your card back a young black male walks purposely towards you. His pants are bunched up around his ankles, he's wearing a hoodie. One hand is grabbing his crotch and the other is in a pocket. You are immediately concerned for your safety. You have pre-judged this situation and your considered judgment is that this young stud is not coming up to you to compliment your hair. There ... you pre-judged a young black male. Does that make you racist? Well; what if this young black male was wearing a business suit? What if he had a briefcase instead of his crotch in one hand, and an ATM card in the other? You're not alarmed, are you? But wait! I thought you were a racist because you showed prejudice against a young black male? But now here you are confronted by another young black male .. and suddenly you're not a racist any more? The explanation, of course, is the young black male in the hoodie was representative of one culture, the black male in the business suit was representative of another. Your prejudice is based on culture, not skin color. Hardly something to support a charge of racism, is it? Anyway ... we're making progress here. At least some members of the MSM are starting to look at the overuse of this word and trying to set the record straight.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Thankfully, since Boortz is, himself, a racist, as has been previously "established" in this community, we can simply dismiss the entire post without having to do something pesky like engaging the content of the argument; a practice also previously established as "appropriate" in this community. In the sense of preaching to the choir, though, that is a quality sermon.

Author:	SuiNeko [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Racist.

Author:	Talya [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
SuiNeko wrote: Racist. Jesus?

Author:	Müs [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Talya wrote: SuiNeko wrote: Racist. Jesus? Global Warming?

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Good article on the whole racist everything thing https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=229	Page 1 of 2

Author:	SuiNeko [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Tapdance!

Author:	Monte [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:
I have a hard time understanding why people come to the defense of folks like Neil Boortz. He has repeatedly displayed his racism on his show and in print, and any time it's pointed out, an alarming number of people scramble to find a symantic justification for ignoring his racially charged rhetoric. Why? Why do people defend him, with snark or any other tactic? Is he someone you admire? Is he someone who's rhetoric pleases you? These questions are not intended to be inflammatory or trollish. I am sincerely curious as to why people defend folks like Boortz.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Good article on the whole racist everything thing
It's not really about defending Boortz. I don't listen to him, and I don't really like him. Actually I never really heard of him until DFK mentioned him on this board. However I feel in the case of this case the article of reasoning is correct. I also heard it described in this method in today's paper. A white man and a black come up offering to you a bucket of manure. He insists it's chocolate and its good, you'll like it. If you refuse them both are you being racist to either or do you just not want a bucket of Manure

Author:	Hannibal [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: I have a hard time understanding why people come to the defense of folks like Neil Boortz. He has repeatedly displayed his racism on his show and in print, and any time it's pointed out, an alarming number of people scramble to find a symantic justification for ignoring his racially charged rhetoric. Why? Why do people defend him, with snark or any other tactic? Is he someone you admire? Is he someone who's rhetoric pleases you? These questions are not intended to be inflammatory or trollish. I am sincerely curious as to why people defend folks like Boortz. The Gays have the right idea when it comes to discrimination. They remove the power of whatever word you call them. They turn it around and toss it right back at them. However, racism has been used as a tool, a wedge, and a bludegon, and honestly, people are tired of it. It's backlash. They are tired of being beat up on an issue they have had nothing to do with. I don't feel people are supporting Boortz as much as they are supporting the position he is taking on some things.

Author:	Monte [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:31 pm ]
Post subject:
However, I don't know that you can separate his positions from his racism. I don't think people are tired of it in the way you describe, either. It's still a powerful rallying cry in the Tea Party movement, and it finds itself comfortably ensconced in right wing talk radio, which is incredibly powerful and politically influential in our country.

Author:	Hannibal [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: However, I don't know that you can separate his positions from his racism. I don't think people are tired of it in the way you describe, either. It's still a powerful rallying cry in the Tea Party movement, and it finds itself comfortably ensconced in right wing talk radio, which is incredibly powerful and politically influential in our country. I'm not sure what talk radio you speak of where this is embraced. I know that certain personalities have snippets taken out of context pretty consistantly to paint them as racists. I feel this is a tatic to trigger the guilt response in people, and I think it's unfair. The Tea Party movement is not part of any radio show. While the hosts may support them, I know for a fact that they also have commented that they are not their voice, and that these movements are upset with both sides of the aisle. The Tea Party is the center speaking out. America is a center-right country for the most part. They are tired of seeing the same old policies being continued year after year, president after president.

Author:	Monte [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage spring immediately to mind. Limbaugh's racism is well documented and well known. He is unapologetic about it, and his fans seem to eat it up. And, he has a great deal of influence over the Republican party. Micheal Savage is much more blatant about it, and also has a large viewing and reading audience for his radio show and books. The Tea Party movement is fueled and promoted by Right Wing radio and television, like Fox News. Fox, especially, is responsible for a huge portion of the marketing of the Tea Party movement and their events, as is talk radio. That's not just reporting happening in a vacuum. And racism is a rather strong undercurrent at those protests. The Tea Party movement is the right wing's version of ANSWER. The difference is that elected republicans are embracing the Tea Party movement, and the left generally can't stand ANSWER and does everything it can to distance themselves from them.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage spring immediately to mind. Limbaugh's racism is well documented and well known. He is unapologetic about it, and his fans seem to eat it up. And, he has a great deal of influence over the Republican party. What racism of Limbaugh's is well-documented and well-known? Does it rely on that "code-word" nonsense? What "influence" does he have over the Republican party? There was no real evidence of Hannity's influence and I suspect the same is true for Rush. Quote: Micheal Savage is much more blatant about it, and also has a large viewing and reading audience for his radio show and books. Michael Savage is an *, but in exactly what terms does he have a "very large" audience? Quote: The Tea Party movement is fueled and promoted by Right Wing radio and television, like Fox News. Fox, especially, is responsible for a huge portion of the marketing of the Tea Party movement and their events, as is talk radio. That's not just reporting happening in a vacuum. And racism is a rather strong undercurrent at those protests. How exactly are they "fueling", "promoting", or "marketing" anything? By not covering it in a sufficiently negative manner? (That's a question there, not a strawman. If that isn't what you mean, clarify, because claiming they fuel, market or promote it is too vague to mean anything.) Where is the "strong undercurrent" of racism? Quote:** The Tea Party movement is the right wing's version of ANSWER. The difference is that elected republicans are embracing the Tea Party movement, and the left generally can't stand ANSWER and does everything it can to distance themselves from them. I see no good reason to accept either claim

Author:	Nitefox [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: I have a hard time understanding why people come to the defense of folks like Neil Boortz. He has repeatedly displayed his racism on his show and in print, and any time it's pointed out, an alarming number of people scramble to find a symantic justification for ignoring his racially charged rhetoric. Why? Why do people defend him, with snark or any other tactic? Is he someone you admire? Is he someone who's rhetoric pleases you? These questions are not intended to be inflammatory or trollish. I am sincerely curious as to why people defend folks like Boortz. Prove he is a racist or stop calling him that. Race is your only defense Monty. It seems you can't keep up with everyone else on the board when it comes to logic and general knowledge on a subject so you just jump right to race. I wish you would stop doing that and actually focus on the real concerns.

Author:	Drexel [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Racism, lol.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	DFK! [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Diamondeye wrote: Monty wrote: Micheal Savage is much more blatant about it, and also has a large viewing and reading audience for his radio show and books. Michael Savage is an *, but in exactly what terms does he have a "very large" audience? Michael Savage has approximately the third largest talk radio audience in the US. Monty: Demonstrate that Neal Boortz is a racist. While you're doing that, I'll present to behavioral representations of him that demonstrate he is not a racist. Evidence #1: The man on the left in the following picture is Neal's producer, friend, and, often, on-air companion. Evidence #2: The link below goes to the website of Neal's primary fill-in host (when Neal isn't available for broadcast). http://www.hermancain.com/ Here is a photo of Mr. Cain: Spoiler:**

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:46 am ]
Post subject:
Michael Savage is racist, yes. He hates all races equally. He spends as much time railing against Jews, stodgy old good old boy white guys, Hispanics, and Asians as he does blacks. Wait a minute, that means he treats everybody the same, regardless of color. I guess he's not racist. He's simply a misanthrope.

Author:	Screeling [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Herman Cain kicks ***.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Screeling wrote: Herman Cain kicks ***. Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation, but I never mind when it's Herman Cain filling in. He's a treat to listen to.

Author:	Screeling [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Screeling wrote: Herman Cain kicks ***. Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is.

Author:	DFK! [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Screeling wrote: Kaffis Mark V wrote: Screeling wrote: Herman Cain kicks ***. Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is. Replace Savage with Hannity for me. Hannity's guests (which are few and far between) are at least 3x his calibre.

Author:	Screeling [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: Screeling wrote: Kaffis Mark V wrote: Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is. Replace Savage with Hannity for me. Hannity's guests (which are few and far between) are at least 3x his calibre. You're a great American, DFK!

Author:	DFK! [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Screeling wrote: DFK! wrote: Screeling wrote: For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is. Replace Savage with Hannity for me. Hannity's guests (which are few and far between) are at least 3x his calibre. You're a great American, DFK! See, that's the biggest reason I dislike Hannity, besides him being a used car salesman: his callers. He has the lowest quality callers and treats them in the worst way, at least amongst the people I get on my local station (Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, in that order for timeslots). Boortz treats his callers best, followed by Limbaugh, then Savage, with Hannity a faaaar 4th, of those hosts anyway.

Author:	Raziel6K [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Good article on the whole racist everything thing
This article does ask an interesting question of culture as far as I'm concerned. The use of a black man could be construed as bias (which is what I'm sure that Monty is latching on to here) but the race wouldn't matter for the scenario to convey its point. For the sake of argument, envision any race of person exhibiting those behaviors. Would you not register those behavioral stimuli as threatening? I probably would, does that make me racist? I should hope not.

Author:	Hannibal [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Really the only racism I consistantly see is the reactions to what people say. Folks jump to the racist conclusion instead of attempting to clarify what was said. So the racism, in my opinion, is assuming what the folks are saying is ment to be racism. It's very chicken/egg ish.