September 30th, 2005


Previous Entry Next Entry
03:15 pm - on committing ultra mega mass genocide...

(42 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on committing ultra mega mass genocide... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: bryguypgh Date: September 30th, 2005 - 08:55 pm (Link)

political loser

Trying to defend himself on this issue is a political loser, but he keeps doing it- that's why everyone (even the President!) is piling on. It's a Sister Souljah moment for the White House.

Bennett's trying to defend his statement by saying it's literally true, but who cares. No one is attacking him for lying; they're attacking him for entertaining sick racist fantasies and telling the world about them.

It's what the hypothetical says about the mind of the hypothesizer that's got everyone riled up. Almost no one is willing to be an unreconstructed racist in public anymore, so these rare glimpses in to the thought process of influential conservative ideologues are about all we have to go on when we try to figure out why inequality persists.
[User Picture]From: inmostlight Date: September 30th, 2005 - 10:13 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

My favorite situation in recent years was the furor and everybody piling on another politician for correctly using the term "niggardly", which has nothing to do with race whatsoever. God bless America.
[User Picture]From: katieboyd Date: September 30th, 2005 - 11:38 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

Yes. I remember comming across that word in studying for the GRE a bit ago. The book I have declared, "Please note that niggard and niggardly are very old words of Scandinavian origin; other than an unfortunate resemblance in sound, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the offensive and derogatory term used by racists to insult African-Americans."
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 03:59 am (Link)

Re: political loser

heh... that's great. I love that they felt the need to explain it away. And I love the subtle hint of disdain that the explanation shows.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 03:57 am (Link)

Re: political loser

You trying to start something here, white boy?

Actually, that's the thing I was getting at. The world we live in is always ready to call shennanigans at something, and to be a successful politician, one needs to expect that, and not only be ready to deal with it, but know how to avoid it. A smart politician would have said "miserly" and avoided the issue. People are ignorant. That is true, but offended is offended. Whether he did it on purpose or not, the end result is the same. Loss of votes.
[User Picture]From: inmostlight Date: October 1st, 2005 - 04:50 am (Link)

Re: political loser

At some point though we have to hope that people won't get offended over stuff for completely incorrect reasons. I should be able to order a black angus and you should be able to eat at Cracker Barrel without having to look over our shoulders for fear of some hypersensitive person misinterpreting.
From: ludimagist Date: October 1st, 2005 - 05:22 am (Link)

Re: political loser

You calling someone a Barrel?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 05:54 am (Link)

Re: political loser

yes... of monkeys...
From: ludimagist Date: October 1st, 2005 - 05:59 am (Link)

Re: political loser

From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 02:03 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

From: ludimagist Date: October 1st, 2005 - 05:04 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 05:59 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 05:53 am (Link)

Re: political loser

oh certainly we have to hope. But the job of the politician isn't about hope. I mean, I'm like the world's biggest supporter of free speech. I think its pretty clear that I almost go out of my way trying to offend people here in a vain attempt at humor. I routinely stand in front of 400 wrestling fans and tell them they're fat and that the night before I fucked their sister. I have no problem with offensive speech, intentional or accidental, real or imagined. But I'm working to amuse people, and maybe sometimes to make them think. Bennett not only isn't as clever as me (*patting my own back*) but he's in a different position than me. He is trying to win public support. He is trying to seriously affect people's way of thinking. He didn't do himself any favors there. I think he has the right to say what he said. I even kind of agree with him. But that doesn't mean that saying it was very smart of him.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 1st, 2005 - 03:51 am (Link)

Re: political loser

See, I agree that its a losing battle, but I don't think he has a choice but to defend himself. I honestly don't believe that he was being racist there at all. He was using a racist argument as obviously wrong, and trying to point out that the caller's social security argument was just as wrong.

He can't not defend it, because doing so would be implicitly accepting the claims that he is racist. But you're right defending himself just makes him look guilty as well. But I think its far better to fight and lose than to accept the fate.
[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 01:37 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

I agree.

It seems to me WB's entire point of saying this was to provide a clear-cut example of a cause-and-effect relationship (aborting Black babies -> reduce crime) that counters the more complex association between abortion and revenue, brought up by the caller.

It's interesting to me that he doesn't agree with the Freakonomics claim that abortion in general resulted in reduced crime, but he does think that aborting just Black babies would. So being unwanted doesn't make you more likely to be a criminal, but being Black does. So, there's something innately wrong with being Black. According to WB.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 02:22 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

Again, I think you are ignoring direct evidence. That's simply not what he said. I won't even go so far as to say he isn't (or is) racist. However his exact quote is states:

1. Black people commit crimes, so if you kill all the black people that would lower crime.
2. This would be morally reprehensble.
3. Statements like this relying on statistics are too tricky to verify the truth of.

He wasn't making the claim out of racism. He was specifically making the claim because it was ridiculous. Or at least that's what he says. Sure, he could be lying, but he could just as easily be telling the truthl. Unlike questionable comments made by say, Barbara Bush or Trent Lott or Louis Farrakhan, where you can simply take what they said on one occasion in its entirity and use it as evidence of racism, in order to claim that Bennett is racist from his comment, you have to dissect it. You have to take some of his claim as truth while completely ignoring something else that he said in the same breath. It would be like if I said "I don't believe that Jews are the Devil" and you quoted me as Mav says "Jews are the Devil", which again, is true, I said it, but its unfair as that was clearly not the intent of my statement.
[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 02:40 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

He was not making the claim because he thought it was ridiculous, he said that actually ABORTING all Black babies is a ridiculous ACTION. He said that it's TRUE that aborting Black babies would result in less crime:

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do , but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.


I don't think he was trying to be racist, but I do think that what he said shows that he is.

But I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things, there are far, far worse assaults on Blacks than this. But I also think that thoughts lead to actions, and so ignoring things like this does not help anyone.


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 03:03 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

and he's right. Statistically speaking, blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Or at the very least they are convicted for a disproportionate amount of crime. So if you removed them from the equation, your crime statistic would go down. Let me rebold the quote that you are referencing:

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do , but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

That means that he believes, or at the very least, he is stating, that doing so might not really provide the desired effect. Not to mention that it would be impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible.

Again, I'm not even saying he is or isn't racist. All I'm saying is that his statement specifically includes the premise it is flawed. And therefore as flawed as the idea of making abortion illegal to save Social Security. He even says earlier that you can't assume that all the babies you save through illegalizing abortion would be productive tax payers. Similarly, you can't assume that all the black babies you'd abort would be criminals. Technically he only has to be right once. Technically, killing even one would be criminal would lower the crime rate. Can you go back in time and kill baby Hitler and stop the Holocaust? Can you go back in time and kill every german baby to make sure you kill Hitler? These are the "tricky extrapolatons" he is referring to.

My real point is that even what you've done here. Bolding certain passages, implies that you mean to ignore the non-bolded ones. "I don't believe Jews are the devil." You and Bryon make a possibly valid point. It is interesting that his mind was able to even construct the argument in the first place. But that's not evidence that he believes it. I can construct several evil terrorist plots, but I don't intend to carry them out.

"I do know that assassinating every person in the middle east would open up large reserves of oil and make gasoline cheaper in the states. If that were your sole purpose, gas prices would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do , but your gas prices would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

Do you see my point? I'm saying that my premise is as unreasonable as his premise. He is saying his premise is as unreasonable as the caller's.
[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 04:31 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

and he's right. Statistically speaking, blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Or at the very least they are convicted for a disproportionate amount of crime. So if you removed them from the equation, your crime statistic would go down.

Right. But why did he specifically pick Blacks as the group? The disparity between males and females in crime is probably greater than the Black/White one (since White males commit more crimes than Black females). And poor people commit more crimes. Etc. This particular comparison shows me how he thinks.

Let me rebold the quote that you are referencing:

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do , but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

That means that he believes, or at the very least, he is stating, that doing so might not really provide the desired effect. Not to mention that it would be impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible.


OK, I do agree that this is the tricky part, deciphering what he's referring to by "these ...". But it seems much more reasonable to me to assume that he's referring to the caller's initial claim, given that he states the Black abortion/crime reduction as a truth and that he's already made the point that the abortion, revenue relationship isn't straight-forward. Listening to the broadcast might help...
From: chrismaverick Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 04:40 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com