Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) 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?That is not at all a fair analogy to what Matthews said! It's merely a zinger analogy with a really bad cartoon mischaracterization of what Matthews said in his full remarks. Again, I urge you to look up his full remarks. Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 That is not at all a fair analogy to what Matthews said! It's merely a zinger analogy with a really bad cartoon mischaracterization of what Matthews said in his full remarks. Again, I urge you to look up his full remarks. I did watch the full video before posting anything on this thread. I think the rest of it makes it even more explicit, e.g. he even mentions tribalism and ethnicity-orientation as things that Obama's charm has finally made him able to overcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 he even mentions tribalism and ethnicity-orientation as things that Obama's charm has finally made him able to overcome.No, that's not what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) ...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. I said that, and I wasn't referring to you, unless the shoe fits. Progressives, for a large part, do think that Blacks are incapable of taking care of themselves. They are closet racists. Go into any upper class Liberal/Progressive community and look around. How many Black faces will you see? Not damn many. I'm old enough to remember the civil rights struggle and Lyndon Johnson, so I well know how these types think. You seem kind of naive. Can't tell how old you are because you have no information on your profile. Edited January 29, 2010 by Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) I said that, and I wasn't referring to you, unless the shoe fits.Of course. You were referring to Matthews, among others. You seem kind of naive.Okay, I'll take your ad hominem gambit. Of what exactly do you think I am naive, and what exactly did I write that leads you to that conclusion? Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 No, that's not what he said. What did he say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 What did he say?You can quote him as well as I can. It would help too to include the remarks that lead up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Of course. You were referring to Matthews, among others. Okay, I'll take your ad hominem gambit. Of what exactly do you think I am naive? Not ad hominem, just an observation based on what you have posted so far. I think you are naive if you believe that Matthews and his ilk are not, deep down, as racist as they accuse others of being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) Not ad hominem, just an observation based on what you have posted so far. I think you are naive if you believe that Matthews and his ilk are not, deep down, as racist as they accuse others of being.(1) I never opined as to whether Matthews and certain other people are as racist as certain other people they may accuse of being racist. (2) As to the question of Matthews specifically, I don't have sufficient information. That is not naivety; I simply haven't studied Matthews enough to draw such a conclusion. (3) As to the more general question of whether certain ostensibly liberal people harbor secret, and sometimes not so secret, racism, I very well know for a fact that that is the case, and I've never posted anything that would indicate that this is knowledge that I have or that I LACK. Please address what I've actually posted; your "observations" otherwise about me are quite aside the point. Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 You can quote him as well as I can. It would help too to include the remarks that lead up. Sure, anyone can quite him, what I am interested in is your interpretation of his remarks. What do you think the context is that we're missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Sure, anyone can quite him, what I am interested in is your interpretation of his remarks. What do you think the context is that we're missing?I really shouldn't have to do very much interpretation. The context that is being left out is simply the actual words Matthews spoke. If they are quoted they easily reveal what Matthews was saying, and not as certain characterizations of what he said. Moreover, your latest paraphrase was incorrect by the corresponding actual quote with hardly any other context even needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 (1) I never opined as to whether Matthews and certain other people are as racist as certain other people they may accuse of being racist. (2) As to the question of Matthews specifically, I don't have sufficient information. That is not naivety; I simply haven't studied Matthews enough to draw such a conclusion. (3) As to the more general question of whether certain ostensibly liberal people harbor secret, and sometimes not so secret, racism, I very well know for a fact that that is the case, and I've never posted anything that would indicate that this is knowledge that I have or that I LACK. Please address what I've actually posted; your "observations" otherwise about me are quite aside the point. Kind of aggressive, aren't we? You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 I really shouldn't have to do very much interpretation. The context that is being left out is simply the actual words Matthews spoke. If they are quoted they easily reveal what Matthews was saying OK, then let me approach it from this angle: What is your evaluation of what he said? Was he being rational? Was it something you would say yourself? Would you like to hear more people say this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Kind of aggressive, aren't we? You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.Sorry, your tack of conversation is really aside the point here. However, to again indulge your personal tack, I've made my points forthrightly and without taking a personal tack. If any part in the conversation is agressive, then it would be yours. This whole direction is aside the point and unproductive toward an intelligent conversation about the Matthews incident or even the general question of race, racism, and public discourse, especially among media polemicists. In other words, I trying to get you to return to the subject at hand rather than snipes that I am "naive", "agressive", or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 OK, then let me approach it from this angle: What is your evaluation of what he said? Was he being rational? Was it something you would say yourself? Would you like to hear more people say this?I would wish to compose my answers to those questions with more deliberation and at a length greater than the current moment allows. However, whatever my responses to those questions, they would not contradict the points I've made here nor do the points I've made here depend on answering those questions. What Matthews actually said in his full remarks is public and it speaks for itself, irrespective of whether I agree with them, would say them myself, or would like to hear other people say them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Sorry, your tack of conversation is really aside the point here. However, to again indulge your personal tack, I've made my points forthrightly and without taking a personal tack. If any part in the conversation is agressive, then it would be yours. This whole direction is aside the point and unproductive toward an intelligent conversation about the Matthews incident or even the general question of race, racism, and public discourse, especially among media polemicists. In other words, I trying to get you to return to the subject at hand rather than snipes that I am "naive", "agressive", or whatever. Not a problem. I'll simply not engage you further. I will say, however, that you took an aggressive tone from the start and positioned yourself as appearing to support Matthews in his racist (IMO) observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 I would wish to compose my answers to those questions with more deliberation and at a length greater than the current moment allows. OK, no problem, I've got to sign off soon myself. If you get a chance later, though, I'd be interested to hear your full response. I think what we are really disagreeing on is the meaning of Matthews's words, and I'm curious where exactly the disagreement lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) you took an aggressive tone from the startNo I didn't, unless "aggressive" incudes merely stating a firm view in disagreement. Go to my actual "start"ing post; it is hardly "aggressive". and positioned yourself as appearing to support Matthews in his racist (IMO) observation.I said there was nothing wrong with it and not objectionable (other than perhaps not wisely worded to protect it from being lifted out of context). I don't particulary "support" the comments; it's just that they are not objectionable. And, of course, if I thought Matthew's remarks were racist I would find them objectionable. Edited January 29, 2010 by Schmarksvillian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenriz Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 In case anyone hasn't seen this, Jon Stewart ripped Chris Matthews on The Daily Show: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/92750/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 In case anyone hasn't seen this, Jon Stewart ripped Chris Matthews on The Daily Show: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/92750/ Of course, we all know that there is nothing objectionable about Matthews' comments. John Stewart is just simply a neo-con tool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) Of course, we all know that there is nothing objectionable about Matthews' comments. John [sic] Stewart is just simply a neo-con tool! I had noted earlier in this thread that Stewart too piled on Matthews. Of course, Stewart is just doing his job - getting laughs. For that matter, it's not extremely rare to find Stewart targetting liberals (including Obama) as well as conservatives. For the most part, humor (especially political humor) depends on over-simpflication of a situation, omission of details and context. Stewart just went for the cheap laugh in this case; notice that he too did not get into the details and context of Matthew's remark. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain other liberals or Democrats who (for whatever motives) decry, or at least take exception to, Matthew's remark. One's friends and allies can also ill serve one on occasion. Edited January 30, 2010 by Schmarksvillian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.