Glenn Beck: Because Conservatives Need Racist Delusions

please lets not lose sight of the proposition put forward by jdawg
to accuse beck of racism is to "trump up" charges against him

as opposed to fake racism, ja?

/snicker

k
on with the whinefest....

ah
fake racist comments and not the genuine kind?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

a pretzel aint got nothing on you, lil buddy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert Title Here)

See #17 above: "I don't have to be black to tell you Jamil is full of crap."

Because, as Jamil Smith notes, "a joke not something simply that the comedian utters from a position of power, but also something which the audience receives".

Now, you can go on about how Jamil Smith is full of crap, but this isn't a question of whether you have a better understanding of the black experience; that particular point is actually a truism.

The performance requires an audience in order to be communicated.

And what was that audience Clint Eastwood was playing to? The Republican Party, which has spent the last four years trying to capitalize on xenophobia.

Which, of course, brings us back to Bouie: "This is a perfect representation of the campaign: an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama."

Clint Eastwood playing to a xenophobic political party that has spent the last four years denouncing an imaginary Barack Obama.

Or, to simply reiterate what I said, and what you overlooked in formulating that part of your response:

If this was not an election year that also happens to be the climax of a years-long fantasy on the right wing attempting to denigrate the president as the scary black man, the question itself probably wouldn't exist. But it is that strange year, and the question does exist. This is why Jamelle Bouie's point an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama has any place in the political discourse.​

I know, I know, you didn't get it the first time, so reiteration is a questionable approach. But your insistence on isolating the various factors so that they have no interrelationship is what causes you to miss the point, so we must try it again by reminding one of the basic truths of comedic performance.

Don Quixote you are not, so quit trying so hard to be.

The first two sentences: "It isn't, though. There was nothing racist about Clint Eastwood's (godawful) routine."

Now, it's true that you don't see any racism in it. But, of course, the black guy who tells us why it struck a racist tone is full of shit, because, well, you know more about the black experience, and what it feels like to be discriminated against for being black, than he does.

You know, because you don't need to be black to tell me that Jamil Smith is full of crap.

Yet you don't need to be black to tell me that Jamil Smith is full of crap about how it feels, as a black man, to be treated a certain way?

I consider your statement that you do not claim such a thing to be a blatant lie.

Again, you're lying.

• "I don't have to be black to tell you Jamil is full of crap."

• "It isn't, though. There was nothing racist about Clint Eastwood's (godawful) routine."​

The problem isn't that people can be wrong. The problem is the basis of your argument: You know better than the black man.

Actually, we are. Except that you decided we aren't.

Here, let's run through this:

Tiassa: Because, you know, when a black man tells me how it feels, and a white man tells me that doesn't count, it always catches me off guard.

Balerion: And why is that? Because, to Tiassa, the only relevant perspective is the black one?

Tiassa: In certain things, yes. You know, like the sort of thing you can only comprehend from certain perspectives?

Balerion: But we're not talking about things that can only be comprehended from certain perspectives.​

Now, you're welcome to add any of the text from that exchange that you want, but the point is that your current argument—"But we're not talking about things that can only be comprehended from certain perspectives"—is exactly wrong.

Well, that's what you are trying to make out of this discussion, which is why you are focusing so much on Eastwood and how you don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black.

And, apparently, doing so according to the presupposition that there are no racial connotations to be found.

Which is why you don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black.

That seems like something of a straw man in its own right. That is, you are correct that one is not obliged to accept that a certain accusation of racism is true, but you are predicating that notion on the idea that you don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black.

To reiterate and compare:

Tiassa: Because, you know, when a black man tells me how it feels, and a white man tells me that doesn't count, it always catches me off guard.

Balerion: And why is that? Because, to Tiassa, the only relevant perspective is the black one?

Tiassa: In certain things, yes. You know, like the sort of thing you can only comprehend from certain perspectives?

Balerion: In your world, if you aren't a woman or a minority, you simply defer to them on all matters regarding them.​

One wonders what you think you're accomplishing by ignoring what's on the record in order to make such straw-man declarations.

Right: "I don't have to be black to tell you Jamil is full of crap."

In other words, we're back to the black man's feelings don't count.

See, without your insistence on that point, the question of whether there is racism can be explored. But the reason a black man might perceive racism? Well, as you said, you don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black.

Stop rendering the black man invisible.

And according to you, one needs not be black to know how it feels to be a black man in the face of racism.

Yes, you're tilting windmills of your own construction, which is what it is, and something that should not surprise anyone.

But the toxic irony is what you follow that with:

What's that? He has no reason to feel insulted as a black man by Clint Eastwood's bit?

And why is that? Is it because you don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black?

And you need to stop relying on that moronic right-wing talking point that liberals and Democrats are "crying racism whenever Obama is criticized". You can't demonstrate it true.

And to reiterate: You're lying.

You tried to excuse Beck from racism.

Actually, there are a couple of notes here; the word "explicitly" is incorrect, as Bouie referred to the campaign. Not Romney himself and exclusively, but the Republican campaign, but I was incorrect to say he was explicitly talking about the Republican Party.

Still, though, we have the underlying question of whether any event or act exists isolated in a vacuum, disconnected from everything else.

Spoken like a true conservative.

Well, it's hard to accommodate your implacable delusion.

I hardly think your defense of Newt Gingrich "established the fact that the left spends much of its time" "making every little thing about race".

I mean, really: In support of the argument that liberals are "trying to portray all opposition of Obama by the Right as racially-motivated", you chose Newt freakin' Gingrich as your example?

Do you recall recently when people were chiding you about being a conservative? There's a reason they were. And that reason is your reliance on right-wing myths.

See, your basic argument here comes down to ignoring the fact that Republicans have spent the last four years trying to stir and exploit xenophobia.

If you have to discount that much of the history in order to validate your pretense, there's something wrong with the pretense.

Well, let's take a look at that:

• Tiassa: The difference, of course, is that Eastwood was just stupid. Beck apparently went out of his way to invoke xenophobia.

Even setting aside Beck's blazing racism, it seems a strange and disturbing Republican trend: They're reduced to debating against their own fantasies.

• Jamil Smith: Eastwood may have been ignorant of the fact he was joining those who delegitimize Obama's very presence, but he's in that league now. As Jamelle Bouie said last night, an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama was an apt metaphor for how the Romney campaign runs against a Democratic record they've made up out of whole cloth.

Watching Eastwood reduce the President to an invented entity in a chair, I couldn't help but wonder what Ralph Ellison would say about all this. The author of the literary classic Invisible Man articulated the metaphor of black invisibility better than anyone ever did previously or since.

• Balerion: "Eastwood was being racist" isn't a valid theory.​

I find your distillation quite suggestive. Indeed, it's a good thing that all events and acts exist in a vacuum with no interrelationship with anything else, because then some might pause to think about the significance of your adherence to the right wing myth that any criticism of President Obama is denounced as racism, as well as your argument that you don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black.

You mean—

"Of course I included Beck in my consideration. I'm arguing against this attempt to paint any criticism or misrepresentation of Obama racist, such as was being done by you and the people you take your cues from."​

—your attempt to include Beck in your defense against a right-wing myth?

But your irony is once again ranging in the toxic; this is also a post in which you reiterated your assertion that you didn't try to excuse Beck.

Coming from a guy who needs to lie as much as you do, that's worth ... uh ... well, exactly whatever a liar accusing a lack of integrity is worth.

You're so far out on your babbling limb that you're not making sense.

Okay, let's see if we can rebuild this conversation so that I can figure out how to apply your statement.

Tiassa: However, you also covered for Beck, who you also included in your straw-man explanation. Then you took issue with the idea of criticizing Beck's apparent exploitation of ethnic-based xenophobia (i.e., racism) by saying, "I just can't see a good reason to trump up charges like this, especially when there's so much genuine racism out there to peg them for."

Balerion: I wasn't defending what he said. I wasn't defending him at all. I was pointing out how stupid it is to act like "delegitimizing" Obama by misrepresenting his platform is somehow racist. That was the point of the allusions made to The Invisible Man. According to this commentator, we're supposed to believe that the mere act of lying about Obama is racist, and not only that but also representative of how African-Americans have no influence on the culture.

Tiassa: You're also trying to dismiss the question by ignoring the frame:

"According to this commentator, we're supposed to believe that the mere act of lying about Obama is racist, and not only that but also representative of how African-Americans have no influence on the culture."

It's not just the "mere act of lying about Obama". Whether or not you are willing to accept this dose of reality, the last four years of right-wing xenophobia and baiting are not irrelevant to the consideration.

Balerion: Of course they aren't relevant. The argument being made isn't "Because of their history, we have reason to believe that _____" but rather "The very act of straw manning is racist."

Tiassa: In other words, you define the argument?

You make the point for me when you insist on cutting out the context.

Balerion: No, they do. I'm just telling you what it is, since you apparently didn't know.​

It's a strange argument you're putting up. To the one, you keep saying you're not making certain arguments. And then, to the other, you turn around and make them. You don't need to be black to tell me that a black man is full of crap when he tells me what it's like to be treated poorly for being black. After all, you know better than the black man how it feels.

Congratulations on rendering the black man invisible. I know you've put a lot of effort into that.

Yes, you used Newt Gingrich as your example and provided no other consideration of the issue than your own say-so. Frankly, I don't see how one example of scrutiny shown a known rhetorical bomber like Gingrich, subject only to your opinion, established the "fact" that any criticism of Obama is denounced by Democrats and liberals as racist.

However, one part of that conversation does come back to haunt us here:

Tiassa: I can tell you that at least one of our conservative neighbors would disagree with you: "Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama," he explained to me, "but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him."

Balerion: Well, I would love to know the basis upon which Mad claims that racism is not a motivating factor, and merely a tool used to stir a racist base, but it amounts to the same thing either way.​

Well, you've provided your own answer:

"The larger context is politics, not racism."​

In July, you didn't see it. In September, you make the argument. After all, it can't be racism. It's just politics. You say so.

Which argument is entirely subject to your own points, namely:

• That it is not about racism, but politics.

• You don't need to be black to tell us that a black man is full of crap when he tells us what it's like to be treated poorly for being black.​

True. History is applicable because it is history.
____________________

Notes:

Smith, Jamil. "Republicans fail to turn Todd Akin into Daniel Tosh". Melissa Harris-Perry Blog. August 22, 2012. MHPShow.MSNBC.com. September 22, 2012. http://mhpshow.msnbc.com/_news/2012...icans-fail-to-turn-todd-akin-into-daniel-tosh

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Both the "monkey god" and the dog eating are from President Obama's autobiography, Dreams from my father.

There standing astride the road was a towering giant at least ten stories tall with the body of a man and the face of an ape. That’s Hanuman, Lolo said as we circled the statue, the monkey god. I turned around in my seat, mesmerized by the solitary figure, so dark against the sun, poised to leap into the sky as puny traffic swirled around its feet. He’s a great warrior, Lolo said firmly, strong as a hundred men. When he fights the demons, he’s never defeated.​

http://books.google.com/books?id=LQ...%20he%E2 %80%99s%20never%20defeated.&f=false​

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”​

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/#ixzz27Jl4Law4​

Reference is also made to Obama eating dog meat in The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama

Before they left for Indonesia, Madelyn Dunham had called the State Department, asking about the perils of Jakarta-the political struggles, the strange foods. She could do nothing about the politics, but she did pack a couple of trunks of American packaged foods. "You never know what these people will eat" she said. She was right; soon, Barry sampled dog, snake, and roasted grasshopper.....
​

http://books.google.com/books?id=F6...CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=obama eats dog&f=false​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It what the Mayans bred the Chihuahua for: it eats the rats, they eat it. Yes mocking Obama multicultural upbring is bad taste, few get such and eye opening experience.

 

Nobody calls Balerion a "bleeding heart."

Now, things like "racist" and "GOP concern troll," on the other hand, do get applied to Balerion pretty much every time he opens his mouth.

 

Yeah, unfortunately this is all too common with Republican/Tea Party folk and their leaders like Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News. And since they are getting very desperate, we can expect an avalanche of this kind of feckless material over the course of the next month.