|
ace, so you're basically arguing that because there are racists whose racism is animated by fear that therefore it's legitimate to be a racist.
so presumably to oppose racism is to discriminate against racists.
which would mean that you are defending the "right" of racists to be racist publicly---because you want to use this "argument" to oppose npr's firing of juan williams.
so then there can be no problem with racism, really. instead, there should be some vague "dialogue" which would somehow "take seriously" the fears of racists and make them "feel better" about the things that prompt their racism. of course since there's neither form nor content to this "dialogue" we can only assume it'd be interminable.
and all that would happen in it really is that the political onus placed by most rational people on racism would be erased, and for it would be substituted some bizarre-o therapeutic regimen designed, presumably, by yourself, with the sole function of enabling you to "argue" that juan williams shouldn't have been fired for expressing what is basically a racist sentiment.
i'm amazed that you insist on this loopy position.
i'm less amazed that you repeatedly dodge the consequences of your own argument, however, because that's clearly how you roll.
and that is why i thought the tea party clip above pertinent here. the "argumentation" mode from the tea partier in it is the same.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|