Issue? Non Issue?

[Otokogoroshi]

Sadly I have to watch Fox news more often than I like... which is ever. Recently they have been harping on the nomenee of Sotamayor for a comment she made back in 2001. It reads as follows:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

Some republican hardliners (I think that's the right term ) are calling her racist for her remark.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7685284&page=1

Next issue non issue.

Two very horrible crimes happened this last week. One is an abortion doctor was slain in his church by a pro-life loony the other is a loony Islamic convert shot a recruiter.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-01-army-recruiter-killed_N.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/george-tiller-killed-abor_n_209504.html

The issue non issue here? Fox news was complaining that Obama decried the murder of the abortion doctor but darned not say anything about the murder of the recruiter.

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Fox news is also suggesting a media bias in the reports on the soldiers death vs the death of the abortion doctor.


So please let us speak of these matters! Of course I find the idea Sotamayor is a racist to be silly spin and the second case of 'media bias' in reporting on the two second cases to be of course... dumb.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Non-issue. A proper media, trained in journalism and concerned with informing the public, would have learned about Judge Sotomayor. They would have placed the comments in proper context, and shared that context with the public. If the media was concerned with the truth, it would point out that all of the charges coming from the right wing are dishonest distortions, intentionally created to demonize a judge who is by all LEGITIMATE accounts both qualified and moderate.

We don't have an effective media. We have a lazy media, a media uninterested in learning anything, let alone sharing that knowledge with the public. We also have a media of, by, and for the wealthy over the rest of us. After all, if you've heard of someone in the media, they probably make enough money to put themselves in the top 1/2 of a percent of American households. So, by nature they have a leaning towards the Republican Party, and the corporations who donate in that direction. Between that natural slant, and their inherent laziness and intellectual incuriousness (is that a word? incuriousitudinalism?) it is easier to just play a "he said/she said" game. So, a bunch of right wingers tell some lies, and they report them as valid viewpoints, and toss a caveat of "Democrats say the comments are out of context" and feel like they've done their job because they didn't "take a side."

The media is SUPPOSED to take a side! Our side! They're supposed to inform us, let us know the facts about situations, not act as stenographers for the powerful.

As far as the second non-issue, three points:

• Because so many Americans are racist and religious bigots, right-wing Christian terrorists are not treated as terrorists. Muslims are the only people allowed to be called terrorists in America(unless you are a right-winger, in which case you might call the teacher's union or anyone to the left of Dick Cheney a terrorist...) I'm not surprised that the situations are being treated differently.
• Obama is right now in the process of trying to cool down our conflict with the Middle East through diplomacy. Now might not be the time to comment on Muslim terrorists, he might wait until he leaves Egypt or wherever he is today.
• The difference between the two murders is that NO ONE is celebrating the death of the soldier, and no "mainstream" organizations targeted him. We all agree that his murder was a horrible thing. Fox News and "mainstream" anti-abortion assholes called for violent action to be taken against Dr. Tiller, and today they are celebrating his death.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Sometimes I have to watch Fox news for a decent amount of time in one sitting (I love my dad THAT MUCH!) and I've noticed that for a 'news' channel they don't have much news... there are far more talking head shows, opinion based yammering fools like O'Reily than they do actual genuine news reports... its pathetic.

MSNBC is almost as bad with CNN sliding in at a third and at least a little decent.


I like the BBC and NPR for news, though NPR has a lot of non news filler stories, still interesting but not news.

 

[Aught3]

Some republican hardliners (I think that's the right term ) are calling her racist for her remark.

Why aren't they calling her sexist? Oh, that's right - they managed to figure out that it's not what she is talking about. To bad they couldn't get just a little further and realise she is talking about differences in upbringing not race.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why aren't they calling her sexist? Oh, that's right - they managed to figure out that it's not what she is talking about. To bad they couldn't get just a little further and realise she is talking about differences in upbringing not race.

If they went all the way, they would realize that she was talking about decisions on cases involving discrimination... but if they came all the way, they wouldn't be right-wingers, would they? :lol:

 

[Aught3]

Oh really? -1 for me then.

 

[VitalApparatuz]

Non issue for sure.
My Dad watches Fox too....thats why I just call to visit mostly

 

[WolfAU]

What she said is definately racist AND sexist... however as a white male I really could care less about her thoughts on the issue. re Obama's comments I don't see them as particularly profound as if he suggested the murder was justified he would have just committed political suicide.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What she said is definately racist AND sexist.

How?

 

[Otokogoroshi]

What she said is definately racist AND sexist.

How?

I agree. How? What she said was in very clear context and not at all sexist or racist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I agree. How? What she said was in very clear context and not at all sexist or racist.

It is "racist and sexist" in the same way that a doctor is being a bigot when he says that he's better at making medical decisions than a car mechanic... in other words, no way at all.

 

[Shapeshifter]

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, LiberalViewer on youtube has lots of examples of new bias, especially on Fox:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer

 

[WolfAU]

Its racist and sexist as she is expressing her belief that latino woman essentially are (or at least should be) smarter and wiser than a white man...

Now the problem lies in what constitutes a racist or sexist remark, and I've found that there really isn't any limits... if you say that one group is different to another, someone will view that as racist/sexist. As such what I'm saying is if a man was to make the inverse statement (that I would expect white men to be smarter than black women...) plenty of people would claim that as racist. Do I think it should be? Not really, but thats the criteria society uses atm. Again, I could care less about what she thinks, but I see this as hypocracy given how much shit men would get for making a similar statement.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Its racist and sexist as she is expressing her belief that latino woman essentially are (or at least should be) smarter and wiser than a white man...

That's a lie, and a stupid one. Try again, this time based in reality?

Now the problem lies in what constitutes a racist or sexist remark, and I've found that there really isn't any limits... if you say that one group is different to another, someone will view that as racist/sexist. As such what I'm saying is if a man was to make the inverse statement (that I would expect white men to be smarter than black women...) plenty of people would claim that as racist. Do I think it should be? Not really, but thats the criteria society uses atm. Again, I could care less about what she thinks, but I see this as hypocracy given how much shit men would get for making a similar statement.

I think you're basing your thinking on fundamentally racist and sexist assumptions, and unlike you... I'm actually willing to explain it, instead of making assertions based on right-wing spin. The fundamental flaw is in assuming that when a Hispanic woman draws on her unique experience, she's being biased in some inappropriate way. You make that assumption based on a deeper assumption, that white males don't make equally "biased" judgments, because you assume "white male" as a baseline that all other perspectives are compared to, usually negatively. Don't feel bad, everyone does it... the same way they assume everyone is a Christian, even though some not-insignificant minority of us are not.

Let's start here, and see if we can come to an agreement... and by that I mean you agree with me, since you're wrong.

Would you accept the statement that you and I do not share identical life experiences? I'm 34 years old, married, former Marine, pins plates and screws in my leg, living in Florida and going to school full time. I think it is safe to assume that you aren't a clone of me living three houses down. Do your experiences make you more or less qualified to comment on them than I am, if I don't share those experiences?

Here's another question: are men and women different? If they are, then we would agree that they each have their own perspectives that are also different. Would you claim that a man would have more insight on issues specifically related to being a man than a woman would? We can extend that to race as well: do you think a black person has more insight on what it means to be white than a white person would?

 

[WolfAU]

So if I was to assert that as a white male I have unique experiences that make me stronger than other groups that this would be socially acceptable?

The fundamental flaw is in assuming that when a Hispanic woman draws on her unique experience, she's being biased in some inappropriate way.

And she is assuming what a man's experience is.

Most of your other comments are a crock of shit and frankly, insultingly presumptuous. Also you didn't adress my point (and you possibly missed it), that being that racism/sexism like many issues are not really defined, with many women crying sexism or minorities crying racism at the slightest injuries.

I make no presumption about who's experiences are more meaningful or valid or better or worse. Also as an Australian calling me 'right wing' is kinda hilarious.

"are men and women different?" Yes and no, I raised this topic in the 'sex' thread. Men and women are very different (physically and in their upbringing) but in the end these differences seem to be very comparable in terms of bigger issues (ie we tend to want the same things like respect, companionship, a chance to prove ourselves etc).

"do you think a black person has more insight on what it means to be white than a white person would?" I wouldn't presume yes or no, but I would call bullshit to any black man who asserted that he did.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So if I was to assert that as a white male I have unique experiences that make me stronger than other groups that this would be socially acceptable?*snip* I wouldn't presume yes or no, but I would call bullshit to any black man who asserted that he did.

So, what you're doing right now is asserting that a black person would be "bullshit" if he claimed to have more insight on being white than a white person, but it is racist for a Hispanic woman to say it is "bullshit" for a white man to claim he has more insight into being a Hispanic woman?
You're expressing the exact racist assumptions I pointed out earlier. Can we guide you out of them? I don't know... are you willing to learn?

Or is the problem that you stupidly cling to a right-wing lie? If so, I'll leave you alone to your delusions.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The point of what she was saying is that the opinion and experience of white males has influenced every interpretation of Law for the last 200+ years in this country. To have someone with a different background look at those same laws is something BADLY needed, and has been needed for a long time.

White men are not by necessity worse at making decisions, they are just incredibly overrepresented. Almost all law has been created through the lens of the average white male experience. Having a wise female latina with Different experience will balance the equation and thus will make wiser decisions that are more representative of the broadness of the experience of the people that the judge's decisions are affecting.

That was the clear context of her original statements, the clear meaning even OUT of context for any thinking person. It was not questioned in 2001 when she made them, and it is only questioned now because of stupid political divisions. I can only hope that most people see through that crap, but obviously if even reasonably intelligent people can be taken in by it, the average joe republican is probably outraged.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The point of what she was saying is that the opinion and experience of white males has influenced every interpretation of Law for the last 200+ years in this country. To have someone with a different background look at those same laws is something BADLY needed, and has been needed for a long time.

White men are not by necessity worse at making decisions, they are just incredibly overrepresented. Almost all law has been created through the lens of the average white male experience. Having a wise female latina with Different experience will balance the equation and thus will make wiser decisions that are more representative of the broadness of the experience of the people that the judge's decisions are affecting.

That was the clear context of her original statements, the clear meaning even OUT of context for any thinking person. It was not questioned in 2001 when she made them, and it is only questioned now because of stupid political divisions. I can only hope that most people see through that crap, but obviously if even reasonably intelligent people can be taken in by it, the average joe republican is probably outraged.

It also wasn't questioned when Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made similar statements. Funny, isn't it? Only Democratic nominees are blasted for "racism"(by a bunch of racists) for comments that Republican nominees have made without comment.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the "upper-class white male" perspective is seen as the default in our culture, and anything that deviates from that is seen as being somehow "different." When people say that Sotomayor is being racist, what they are doing is saying that she should think and act more like a white person would.

 

[WolfAU]

ImprobableJoe: Either you're intentionally twisting my words or you have no desire to understand what I'm getting at, preferring to attack what you think I'm arguing. Either way I give up trying to correct you. You also seem to be very overzealous about this... for whatever reason.

You also continue to accuse me of being 'right winged', when as I said, this is a political philosophy which essentially does not exist in Australia.

"what they are doing is saying that she should think and act more like a white person would. " yeah... you're an idiot. You have not only not tried to understand what I'm arguing, but you are jumping to completely unjustified conclusions as well.