Yes

Sweet.

It was actually a response to Cimarron29414's concerns that Beck didn't seem to be guilty of anything but having unpopular opinions. I'm fairly sure the reason this boycott thing is all happening is the "Obama is a racist" or "Obama has a problem with white people" comments. He's certainly not the first person to race bait, and he's not even the worst offender (see the Lincoln-Douglas Debates for what I think was the worst race baiting in American history), but he sure is guilty.

Question, is it also race baiting when Al Sharpton makes the same kinds of statements about white folks?

yes

Fortunately, that question has already been asked and answered, so we can stay on the topic of Glenn Beck.

thanks, i have little interest in this discussion since I am not a fan of race-baiting at all. just was curious when I perused the new posts and say your comment to rahl.

I'm all for the commerce to work the magic it works, voting with your wallet is a great way to get your point across.

Really? I triple-dog-dare you to try to start the "White Entertainment Television" network...see how far you get.

But that's not racial awareness and advocacy. That would be a creation out of ignorance.

Get real. Inversion of ideals and situations seldom gets you "the inverse is true, otherwise the initial concept is a sham." The world isn't that simple and cut & dry.

I confess that my example was poor and didn't represent advocacy, so much as cultural media. I apologize for choosing quickly and poorly. My point is that if you created an non-profit called "the Association for the Advancement of White People", the media would attack you relentlessly as a racist organization. To say there is not a double-standard in this regard is naive.

Of course there is a double standard. That's because of our history. The key thing, however, is to realize that the double standard applied against non-whites is not so bad as it has been in the past—but they are still there.

The term double standard doesn't quite work for me, though. We normally use it to imply an unfairness. For example, it would be a double standard to pay minorities less than whites based on race.

What we're talking about is more of a differing standard, as we wish to view things from both directions, not only what is deemed unfair historically. The standard we apply to issues of blackness differs from what we apply to issues of whiteness, and this because of our history. There is no White Entertainment Network or White History Month for a reason.

this is based on a false dichotomy of ethnic relations. We have multiple Associations for the advancement of Irish descendants, Italian descendants, Jewish descendants, and so on and so forth.

Italian-American Civil Rights League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IRISH AMERICAN HERITAGE

Polish American Historical Association

PAN - Polish American Network Website

There's a reason I've never heard of any of those. Their roles in society are quite small compared to the work the NAACP.

Beck's race-baiting and race based fearmongering are a serious issues. When Beck said President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture", what he was doing was not informing people of factually verifiable information, but was inventing an issue where it doesn't exist with the clear intent of causing racial tensions. There are already going to be racial tensions when we elect our first non-100%-white president, but exacerbating it by giving racists validation is inexcusable. This is something people need to take seriously.

More of Glenn Beck's race-baiting...

Because the issues and matters specific to their communities are currently very small too. Irish associations were much more visible and consequential when discrimination against the Irish was more prevalent.

I am not saying that to discuss what ethnic group does this or that, just to point that when someone says "you don't have a white version of this or that Black group," that is incorrect.

/end of derail

I'm coming around to your point that it is indeed race-baiting - encouraging whites to feel threatened by him (based on the fact that they are white). I can see that been a potential side effect of his statements. I am white and I don't believe that Obama is a threat to me because of that fact. He is a threat to me because I have a dollar in my pocket.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------

Not the same, those were minorities (as to origin) coming into this country. I am a member of a German group, whose origin links back to the first German families in my town looking out for each other. The group still exists, but does not serve that purpose any longer - it's a social organization now.

And you're perfectly welcome to have that opinion. We may respectfully disagree about it, but I recognize that you're not trying to cause or inflame hatred. I'd much rather you were a host/personality on Fox News than Glenn Beck. :thumbsup:

That's cause we have all the other 400 channels to claim.

BA-ZING!

HA! Probably not. I wouldn't go as far as these guys go, but I would get as much flak. There's big money in the media for demonizing those with whom you disagree. I can say that I am exponentially better looking that Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh! :P It's amusing how people with faces for radio always seem to make it on TV eventually.

Ya they took faces built for radio then added high definition to the equation :eek:

I agree with Will. I welcome and encourage factual information, from pundits and talkshow hosts, on why Obama would potentially be trying to screw Americans, or why his plans wouldn't work, or why government-run healthcare will suck.

But lies with potentially dangerous consequences I am definitely not OK with. I would not have stood for "Bush hates jews," or other inaccurate things without proper backing up. If somebody actually did have a taped conversation from Obama in office where he did show hatred for an ethnic group, I would definitely like to be informed.

Simply put, this is not their function. "Just the facts" is not something they hope to air.

These shows are meant for one thing: rabble-rousing. These men are demagogues, and they get high ratings for being that way.

Anyone looking for facts--or even rational criticism--need to seek elsewhere (and likely already do).

Sure, maybe I phrased it wrong. I know these shows are just opinion factories. I wouldn't have a problem with them if the opinions presented had their roots in facts, and in things that were true. Hell, even them spinning the truth, and framing debates in a irrational way, I don't mind. But this kind of rhetoric can lead to violence and death, very quickly.