Your "wow" moment of the day

[2046]

This from the recently self-admitted Marxist MSNBC political commentator Chris Mathews after the State of the Union Speech:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ck-tonight-hour

MATTHEWS: I was trying to think about who he was tonight, and it's interesting, he is postracial by all appearances, you know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

[Maximus]

Chris Matthews is pretty much a piece of human excrement. And a racist. These commie/progressives, deep down, believe that Blacks are incapable of intellectual achievment and must be "taken care of."

Edited January 29, 2010 by Maximus

[Capitalism Forever]

Wow, Mr. Matthews, you sound so incredible in that video! You know, I almost forgot you were a retard for about a second.

[Schmarksvillian]

I don't have any allegiance to Chris Matthews, but there was nothing wrong with what he said about Obama and race. Sure, if you take "I forgot he was black" out of context of the rest of his remarks, it sounds bad, but not in context of the rest of his remarks, and especially not in context of his subsequent elaboration.

[Schmarksvillian]

believe that Blacks are incapable of intellectual achievment and must be "taken care of."

That is not at all what Matthews said or implied.

[Jake_Ellison]

Not sure what's racist about that. Sounds like he's just happy Obama managed to go an hour without playing the race card.

[Schmarksvillian]

Sounds like he's just happy Obama managed to go an hour without playing the race card.

Nope, all you have to do is take Matthews at face value for what he actually said, including his subsequent elaboration.

[SapereAude]

Nope, all you have to do is take Matthews at face value for what he actually said, including his subsequent elaboration.

I think the problem is, Schmarksvillian, that in the current political culture of the USA everything is subjective.

Nothing is about intent but the way it can be spun by an opponent.

Since the same exact thing said by a capitalist, conservative or Republican would set off a firestorm of "racist" accusations what Matthews said is now, in their subjective sphere "racist".

This sounds stupid because it is so anti-concept.

But that is the point of politics today.

It isn't what is being said, but who's saying it that seems to determine the nature of a remark.

[Schmarksvillian]

Since the same exact thing said by a capitalist, conservative or Republican would set off a firestorm of "racist" accusations

I would have a hard time disagreeing with you on that point. Yes, I think it's safe to conjecture that if, for example, Sean Hannity had said what Matthews said, then Democrats and liberals would be all over it. That raises the whole 'tu quoque' drag on public, in particular partisan, discourse. And perhaps Matthews was unwise not to more carefully protect his remark from being distorted and taken out of context. Interestingly, even some liberals have piled on; for at least one example, Jon Stewart. However, what Matthews actually said was not as it is being distorted and was not at all objectionable.

[SapereAude]

I would have a hard time disagreeing with you on that point. Yes, I think it's safe to conjecture that if, for example, Sean Hannity had said what Matthews said, then Democrats and liberals would be all over it. That raises the whole 'tu quoque' drag on public, in particular partisan, discourse. And perhaps Matthews was unwise not to more carefully protect his remark from being distorted and taken out of context. Interestingly, even some liberals have piled on; for at least one example, Jon Stewart. However, what Matthews actually said was not as it is being distorted and was not at all objectionable.

Yes, but those who live by subjectivism will die by subjectivism.

[Schmarksvillian]

Yes, but those who live by subjectivism will die by subjectivism.

Whatever that means or however it is argued, my point is that it's better to comment on the basis of what was actually said (and reasonably inferred to have been meant) rather than on out of context misconstrual. If, meanwhile, one wishes to adduce putative examples of Matthews having ridiculed others based on mischaracterization of their remarks, then fine. Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian

[SapereAude]

Whatever that means or however it is argued, my point is that it's better to comment on the basis of what was actually said (and reasonably inferred to have been meant) rather than on out of context misconstrual.

My point is that the liberals have themselves made everything into a morass of racial tension. They themselves have decided that whenever race is brought up it should be judged subjectively to whatever advantage they want to make of it.

Now, they are living the results of the atmosphere of the reality (or non-reality as the case may be) they have created.

What you are arguing would be valid in a world other than the one the race-obsessed liberal media has helped to create.

But when someone presents a scenario saying "... but in a perfect world..."

my only response is "....but we are acting in this one.."

Matthews is experiencing the discomfort of having his subjective standards applied to him. He has evaded reality for too long, believing as he hurled his own inflammatory out of context rhetoric that he was safe because his views appeased the masses.

He is simply being judged by the standards that he has personally promoted as the correct standards by which one should be judged.

That is what I mean by "those who live by subjectivism will die by subjectivism".

[Schmarksvillian]

My point is that the liberals have themselves made everything into a morass of racial tension. They themselves have decided that whenever race is brought up it should be judged subjectively to whatever advantage they want to make of it.

Polemicists from both the right and left are continually couching every damn incident to the disfavor of the other.

But when someone presents a scenario saying "... but in a perfect world..."

my only response is "....but we are acting in this one.."

And my point does not depend on any such premise of a perfect world. Just because so much of public discouse is a sewer of misinformation, intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy doesn't diminish that one does a lot better by aspiring to be informative, intellectually honest and not hypocritical rather than to indulge the urge to the opposite.

And in this particular incident, as in any other, it is better to keep straight what was actually said or occurred.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't have any allegiance to Chris Matthews, but there was nothing wrong with what he said about Obama and race. Sure, if you take "I forgot he was black" out of context of the rest of his remarks, it sounds bad, but not in context of the rest of his remarks, and especially not in context of his subsequent elaboration.

The problem with the remark is its implication: that ever since Obama has been on the scene, Matthews has been remembering that he was black. You can only forget that which you remember, right? So all this time he's been supporting him, rooting for him, feeling all tingly in his legs when seeing him, etc., he was "remembering he was black."

[Schmarksvillian]

The problem with the remark is its implication: that ever since Obama has been on the scene, Matthews has been remembering that he was black. You can only forget that which you remember, right? So all this time he's been supporting him, rooting for him, feeling all tingly in his legs when seeing him, etc., he was "remembering he was black."

I don't see that that contradicts anything I've said or presents any problem with what I've said.

(By the way, as a side note, to say that one forgot about something does not imply that one was always aware of that thing, but rather that at least at certain times one was aware of it.)

Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian

[SapereAude]

Polemicists from both the right and left are continually couching every damn incident to the disfavor of the other.

And my point does not depend on any such premise of a perfect world. Just because so much of public discouse is a sewer of misinformation, intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy doesn't diminish that one does a lot better by aspiring to be informative, intellectually honest and not hypocritical rather than to indulge the urge to the opposite.

And in this particular incident, as in any other, it is better to keep straight what was actually said or occurred.

I don't think anyone is spreading misinformation about what words actually came out of his mouth.

What you seem to be taking exception to is the way those precise words are interpreted.

I for one believe that being judged by one's own standards is completely just.

He is being judged by the standards he has promoted.

To quote the big sign in the sky

"Brother, you asked for it"

If it makes you feel any better though, when liberals get in trouble for these things they generally get quickly forgiven after a small bout of grovelling and they get to keep their jobs. Not so for most conservatives.

[SapereAude]

The problem with the remark is its implication: that ever since Obama has been on the scene, Matthews has been remembering that he was black. You can only forget that which you remember, right? So all this time he's been supporting him, rooting for him, feeling all tingly in his legs when seeing him, etc., he was "remembering he was black."

True that. In all honesty the only time his race occurs to me is when it gets brought up. Otherwise I just think of him as that disgusting Marxist cult of personality.

[Schmarksvillian]

I don't think anyone is spreading misinformation about what words actually came out of his mouth.

What you seem to be taking exception to is the way those precise words are interpreted.

Come on, please, I made clear that the distortion is in the taking out of context. On the other hand, sure it is possible that someone could find some legitimate basis for objection even to the full context. Anyone is welcome to articulate that. My point, meanwhile, is that I don't think there is anything in those particular in context remarks to object to. That Matthews himself or anyone else has also made distortions is an additional matter.

I for one believe that being judged by one's own standards is completely just.

He is being judged by the standards he has promoted.

You're repeating your premise (or argument, whatever it is). I've made my thoughts clear enough meanwhile; we don't need to go around in a circle of repetition.

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't see that that contradicts anything I've said or presents any problem with what I've said.

You've said that you don't find his remark objectionable, but I think the fact that he's been "remembering he's black" all this time does not reflect too well on him, to put it mildly.

(By the way, as a side note, to say that one forgot about something does not imply that one was always aware of that thing, but rather that at least at certain times one was aware of it.)

That's correct, but if you add to it the facts that 1) this is the first time he says he forgot it, and 2) he gushes so enthusiastically about forgetting it (meaning that he finds it very much worth mentioning and would have mentioned it if he had ever forgotten it before) you do get the implication that he was remembering it all the time before.

[Capitalism Forever]

On the other hand, sure it is possible that someone could find some legitimate basis for objection even to the full context. Anyone is welcome to articulate that.

That's what I've been doing.

[Schmarksvillian]

You've said that you don't find his remark objectionable, but I think the fact that he's been "remembering he's black" all this time does not reflect too well on him, to put it mildly.

(1) I addressed that his remarks do not imply that every moment he thought of Obama he thought of him as black (I see you respond below, so I do too).

(2) It's wonderful that some people claim not to think of Obama as black except when mentioned, but I don't find it reprehensible that a person may at certain times, or even often, be aware that another person is black or caucasion or whatever. To simply be aware that a person is of a certain race, ethnicity, is not itself racism. If it were, then the definition of 'racism' would be so broad as to lose its import.

this is the first time he says he forgot it,

That doesn't entail that there is no other prior moment that he was not thinking of Obama's race or preoccuped by it.

he gushes so enthusiastically about forgetting it (meaning that he finds it very much worth mentioning and would have mentioned it if he had ever forgotten it before) you do get the implication that he was remembering it all the time before.

As I said, please refer to the context of his remark, including his subsequent elaboration. Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian

[SapereAude]

That's what I've been doing.

I think it is what we've all been doing.

I'm taking his speech, in full, in it's FULLEST context.

And the FULL context is that he consistantly calls others out as racist for very similiar things. The full context is the environment in which he said this.

With all due respect it is you Schmarksvillian that seems to not be taking it in it's "full context".

(I did not mean that to sound snarky or accusatory but I know of no other way to state it)

I think what you want is for us to judge his words out of context- that is, out of the context of the environment that exists in large part because of his efforts.

I'm not sure why you accused me of talking around in circles.. you said you weren't sure what I meant by my remark about living & dying by subjectivity so I restated in a slightly different manner to accomodate you.

Edited January 29, 2010 by QuoVadis

[Schmarksvillian]

That's what I've been doing.

Many times I've been aware that Obama is black even though it hadn't been mentioned at that time. Even IF ordinarily, I recall that he is black when I think of him, then that doesn't indicate that I think "Blacks are incapable of intellectual achievment and must be "taken care of"" [to quote one poster here] nor that I abide by any objectionable beliefs. And if I were to remark about certain contexts that I am glad that I and other people around me do forget about race (as opposed to times in the past when it would be unlikely that people would forget about race) then that is not reason to say that I abide by any objectionable beliefs. Add to that that Matthews context was that of the first State of the Union by a black president and that his observation was that this was another welcome instance in which what would have been in the past a matter of strong awareness was in fact not a matter of strong, or even any, awareness at all.

Sure, if I'm looking for the comic retort, it would be "That's right, Chris, no one was thinking about race until YOU mentioned it. Thanks a lot." But that's mere flippancy when you look at what he said in full.

[Schmarksvillian]

the FULL context is that he consistantly calls others out as racist for very similiar things.

That is the context of some hypocrisy. I've ALREADY agreed that there is such hypocrisy all over the place. I've ALREADY agreed that Matthew's remark is any easy target in the "tu quoque" game. I've ALREADY agreed that as to hypocrisy, you can nail a lot of people (say, including Matthews if you wish to put together a case).

I think what you want is for us to judge his words out of context- that is, out of the context of the environment that exists in large part because of his efforts.

No, you are reading beyond what I've actually said. I did not say that one cannot evaluate the incident in such a larger context. Indeed I AGREED at the outset that there is the general context of the poor state of public context to consider in this incident. And I haven't precluded that one may wish to put together some case against Matthews in particular in regard to such matters as racial comment, etc.

I'm not sure why you accused me of talking around in circles.. you said you weren't sure what I meant by my remark about living & dying by subjectivity so I restated in a slightly different manner to accomodate you.

No, by that time, I well got your intent about that. The question of hypocrisy that you're raising is legitimate; I agreed to that from the outset. But the question of what Matthews in this instance actually said is a distinct, though, of course, related question. That's pretty much the thrust of my remarks. I don't object to skewering someone for hypocrisy, but I would rather myself be intellectually honest about it and keep straight (or at least try to keep straight) what he actually said and as he said it in full. If you disagree with that principle, even in a world in which polemicists ordinarily are intellectually dishonest, then so be it; that would be a whole discussion onto itself. In the meantime, though, please recognize that what I said "I don't object to skewering someone for hypocrisy, but I would rather myself be intellectually honest about it and keep straight (or at least try to keep straight) what he actually said and as he said it in full; and in this case, what he said in context is not objectionable" is what I"m saying and not these other things that you seem to think I've said. Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian

[Capitalism Forever]

Many times I've been aware that Obama is black even though it hadn't been mentioned at that time.

Sure, everybody is aware of it--you can't help being aware of it, sense perception being automatic. I am aware in the back of my mind that Ayn Rand was a woman, too, every time I hear her name mentioned, see a picture of her, or read anything written by her. But her being a woman is not the primary reason why I admire her and study her philosophy--it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I needn't "forget she was a woman" because I never "remember" it--meaning I don't take it to be an essential attribute of hers which plays a central role in forming my estimate of her ideas, just as an attribute that she happens to have had.

Or to give you another analogy: Suppose there was a guy who claimed to be a huge Fred Astaire fan and kept telling everyone how much he adored him--and then, after years of doing this, after one performance he said "I was so enthralled by Fred that, for the first time in my life, I looked at him and saw only a dancer, nothing else. I mean, I completely forgot he was a Jew!" What would you think of such a person?