What's new
By:
Filters

Muslims, Political Correctness, and the Juan Williams saga

PC or not, it's so damn wrong to think all white guys are non-threatening weaklings! Imagine if he woulda said sumthin bad about a minority!?!?! Oh lawd the uproar! Reverse-bigotism IS bigotism.
 
Hopper said:
One reason I ax, Mo, is that I understood you to say that Williams' (probably out of context) remarks struck you as "racist." Still feel that way, after watchin the vids?





Well, you can evaluate whether thoughts (if expressed), feelins (if expressed), and presumed psychological states comply with the requirements of political correctness, caincha?
Click to expand...

OUT OF CONTEXT seems to be the operative statement there. And I don't recall saying that at all. I tried to find where I might've made any other comment on this, but couldn't. I do recall saying something about being surprised at the time at a couple friends of mine who seemed to share his sentiments to some degree. But I couldn't find that post so I might have made that comment elsewhere.

And the answer to the second part of your question is NO. Besides, I wasn't aware that political correctness had "requirements" and I am somewhat suspect of the concept anyhow.
 
C l u t c H 385 said:
PC or not, it's so damn wrong to think all white guys are non-threatening weaklings! Imagine if he woulda said sumthin bad about a minority!?!?! Oh lawd the uproar! Reverse-bigotism IS bigotism.
Click to expand...


Hear dat, homey! Aint they never heard of no Rocky Marciano, I wonder? No Matt Harpring? Blacks probly don't pay no attention to white folk no how, I spoze, and they probly all look just alike to em, too.
 
Hopper said:
...ax Kicky. He's seems to suggest that "complaints" by listeners (without even qualifying his statement to consider the nature or content of the complaint or the identity of the complainer) are determinative of what NPR should do.
Click to expand...


Lookin back, it seems I mighta been a little hasty when makin this comment, eh? The "nature" (if not the actual content or identity of the complainer) of the 56 complaints Kicky indirectly cited as (a starting) justification for "opting to use a different contributor" was spelled out. It was his comment about Michelle Obama:

"The latest flap involves Williams' comment on Fox about First Lady Michelle Obama. To date, I've received 56 angry emails. For comparison, this year so far, listeners sent 13 emails about Steve Inskeep, 8 about Mara Liasson and 6 about Cokie Roberts — other NPR personalities who I often get emails about."

Even then, it's far from clear that all 56 complaints were about that, (because she is citing complaints in the year to date, not just since the "latest flap") but apparently some of them were.

Elsewhere Kicky referred to "baggage" that Williams brought to NPR. I guess he was referrin to this claim from the ombudsmand about why Willliams was controversial "among NPR listeners."

"Williams is controversial among NPR listeners because of his long-standing contract with Fox News, which he had before he joined NPR. Currently, he appears on Fox sometimes with Bill O'Reilly and on Sunday morning with Chris Wallace."


Kinda curious that NPR would complain about that association when it preceded his association with NPR itself, aint it?
 
Last edited:
Another issue which seems to be emergin from this thread is one I've raised before in another thread (and which got me an infraction, or warnin, I forget, for "trollin"). It is the age-old philsophical question of whether "might makes right." It amazes me how often peoples will try to settle an issue of what "should" be done by relying on the "power" someone has (the "power" of NPR to fire, in this case).

A long time ago, Eric was a mod. He gimme an infraction for a sentence in a post I made. This contributed to (and at least partially caused) me to be banned from that board after a final "infraction" which never was explained to me. At that time, I exchanged a few PM's with Eric regarding the "objectionable" comment I made. My recollection is that, no matter what I said, I kept gittin basically the same response from him, to the effect that "we have the right to punish posters for any reason we see fit." I never questioned that, and that wasn't the basis of my inquiry.

I have the "right" to stand for 30 minutes and watch someone bleed to death on a street corner, laffin the whole time. Aint no law which says I gotta call no ambulance, or try to help in any way, least not if I aint the one who cut him to begin with. Does my "right" to do that make it the "right" thing to do, ya figure?
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Here's what's missing: a link between the calls by CAIR and the actions by NPR.
Click to expand...

In addition to issuing it's own official demand for action by NPR against Williams, CAIR launched a facebook campaign (at 1:48 P.M. on Wednesday, 10-20-10) asking for "immediate action" from it's members which was to contact NPR and demand "action" against Williams. A "sample letter" was provided:

SAMPLE LETTER:

During an appearance Monday on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," NPR News Analyst Juan Williams backed Bill O'Reilly's recent claim that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" and then said: "[W]hen 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."

Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR.

I respectfully request that your network take appropriate action in response to Mr. Williams intolerant comments."

https://www.facebook.com/notes/cair...ress-analysts-remarks-on-muslims/449625769441

That night NPR fired Williams, without even meeting with him. Interestingly enough, of the thousands of emails received by NPR (the vast majority of which supported Williams), NPR ombudsman selected one, and only one, to quote, i.e., this one (which was received on "wednesday," before Williams was fired):

"On the Radio, Williams is somewhat of a thoughtful though superficial moderate while on FOX he shows his politically correct submissive Pro Fox bigotry for a few dollars more," wrote Mohamed Khodr, a doctor from Winchester, VA, who was among scores who contacted me Wednesday.

"NPR must and should take a stand against this bigotry and tell Williams' he must choose NPR's code of ethics or be let go to join the racist bigoted fearmongerers of FOX,” continued Khodr. “NPR can't have it both ways."
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
They shouldn't. But ax Kicky. He's seems to suggest that "complaints" by listeners (without even qualifying his statement to consider the nature or content of the complaint or the identity of the complainer) are determinative of what NPR should do.
Click to expand...

The majority of NPRs funds come directly from listeners. Naturally they will listen to them.

Hopper said:
You seemed to blame it on a "angry segment," Eric. Certainly the Fox News report (as opposed to the opinionated "Factor" segment which O'Reilly presides over) was not an "angry" segment. The first to run the story was presumably NPR (who Fox News quoted) in any event, and the ombudsman said the e-mail reponses were from THAT news story and were generated off of NPR's own website.
Click to expand...

The news story is more than the news segment(s) being aired on a simgle network/website, and of course the emailserver being crashed and was NPRs email server. If you want to contact NPR, you go to their site, even if you have not been there before.

Hopper said:
More on that later, although it was mentioned in the first vid I posted
Click to expand...

No evidence, got it.

Hopper said:
Yes, they are. "Supposed" in the sense that that is how they are generally perceived by their own audience, by others who don't listen regularly, and by impartial "analysts" of the media. But not "supposed" in the sense of "should," of course.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you are supposedly aware of how NPR's audience views NPR. NPR specializes in long news segments were opposing points of view can make detailed,substantive responses, and does not employ commentators on current events or political opinions (there are commentators on things like movies and sports).

Of course, if you want to claim a slower-paced, more-detailed examination of the facts favors liberals, or that there is something about liberals that means they are more likely to support a thorough discussion of the facts looks at all the sides involved, I won't dispute you. I don't see it that way.

Hopper said:
We both know what she said, Eric, and it seems obvious to all I've seen comment (except you) just what she was trying to insinuate, which is presumably why she apologized. If you want to cling to your denial of the innuendo, help yourself. I'm not gunna debate you about it for 4 pages.
Click to expand...

I was discussing the meaning of the innuendo, not denying its existence. I'm sure to some people, any indication of seeing a psychiatrist involves an assumption of mental instability. Others see it as a simply a place to discuss things privately. I agree that she apologized because there are people who interpret the innuendo in the way you suggest. That is not the same assaying it was her intention.

Hopper said:
"If I'm walkin the streets late at night and I hear loud footsteps behind me, I git worried. If I look behind me and see it's a white guy, I'm relieved" (Chris Rock, or some black comedian, I mighta forgot just who)
Click to expand...

I havethe exact same reactions to any young man, regardless of skin color. If some comedian thinks one skin color is safer, he is kidding himself.

Hopper said:
In addition to issuing it's own official demand for action by NPR against Williams, CAIR launched a facebook campaign (at 1:48 P.M. on Wednesday, 10-20-10) ... That night NPR fired Williams, without even meeting with him. Interestingly enough, of the thousands of emails received by NPR ... Mohamed Khodr, a doctor from Winchester, VA,
Click to expand...

So, no evidence.
 
I just read about the ban. If Hopper wishes to continue the discussion, he's welcome to do so on my blog.
 
The Thriller said:
Serious question, why does Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck on every one of their shows talk about George Soros? What's so important about this guy? Is a governor from some backwards state that the GOP is trying to recruit to run as VP in 2012? Seriously, why is foxnews and am radio talking about him all the time? And it's not like I take in a lot of that kind of media. So even in my few experiences with foxnews and am radio, I'm hearing about George Soros. Just imagine if I was a real all day listener!

Can anyone explain to me why conservative radio is obsessed with this guy?
Click to expand...

Since you've brought this up more than once... George Soros has been a favorite target of the conspiracy crowd for years. This is no overnight sensation blowing through the ether wind as you're making the story out to be.
 
Karma:

"The board for NPR NEWS has just ousted CEO Vivian Schiller in the wake of video sting by conservative activist of a top exec," he said.

Vivian Schiller also faced criticism for her firing of analyst Juan Williams over comments he made about Muslims. She told The Associated Press that the recent remarks made by her fellow executive Ron Schiller, no relation, were outrageous and unfortunate and that her staying on would only hurt NPR's fight for federal money.
Click to expand...

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41986715/ns/politics-more_politics/
 
Is this an effort to fuel the "Millsapa is Hopper" rumors or what?
 
Hopper said:
Recently there have been some claims and statements made about "racism," "religious slurs," etc., in connection with the Muslim religion. These include some comments made in Eric's recent thread, with a specific reference to "politcal correctness," but I am also thinking, among others things, about specific comments made to me by mods in recent infractions and warnings I have been given.

I don't know if it even possible for many people to have an honest discussion of these issues. Many seem to think the utterance of truth is unacceptable if it doesn't cater to, or advance, their personal socio-political dogma.

Since words and pictures are much easier and more fun to view and understand than obnoxious printed words, I will attempt to elucidate some of the issues by means of a couple videos pertaning to Juan Williams. As most of you probably know, Williams is a distinguished (black) man who wrote an excellent book on racism and is a life-long liberal. He held a high position (senior news analyst) at NPR for many years, but was summarily fired and accused of being a bigot by NPR for expressing some of his personal anxiety about muslim garb when on an airplane.

This first vid is mainly just a summary of the circumstances of the firing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIOBYsVuuFs

*see op for other 2 videos*

Who's right here, in your opinion? NPR for firing Williams, or the critics of that action?
Click to expand...


Bump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top