Politicians hate the darkiesFollow

He's not really a politician anymore. He's a shock jock!

Theoretically speaking, racism is the extension of a stereotype. You make a stereotype about a person or a group based on one aspect, in this case, color, and you make it a characteristic of a culture.

1. He assumes the crime rate is related to fatherless children. Maybe. Plausible.


2. He SAYS that it's related to fatherless black children specifically. He's hinting at a direct relationship which implies a racial cause: crime=color. That's racist.

Moe, by implying that he agreed directly or indirectly with statement "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down", you are instantly implying that darkies are a key source of crime, and by reducing the population of them, crime will inherantly go down.

You could also say, that by murdering all the asshats that post on allakhazam, the number of MMO players would go down. The key is an intrinsic link has been made between asshats and MMO players, even though I have not said "MMO players are asshats". Therefore, Bennett has implied that he believes darkies are to blame for crime.

Had he followed up his statement with something to hte tune of, "But that would be fair to say for any race considering every race commits crime, so we might as well just kill everyone and be done with it." He would not have been making a racist statement. By definition, a racist remark is made when you associate an intangible idea with a genralized group of people who share tangible traits. Positive or negative, it still falls into a racist/sexist/etc. comment. (Like Flea's 2nd point).

Politicians are supposed to be Politically Correct, it's implied in the name.

he is not a politician, f'uck-wit. Nor was he when he was a political appointee as SecEd.

Well, forcing anyone to have an abortion would in fact, be a crime.

So the crime rate would actually go up.

Also, William Bennett is a massive tool.

Let's work from the premise that he is not a racist for a moment, and assume your analysis is correct. While he did state:



I just don't buy it. Politicians and the like know how to shovel ******** better than anyone. He is on the radio FFS, not in a college auditorium. This little gem is what seals the deal for me:


If he is not an ignorant bigot, then why did he not use his scholarly ways to ensure clear communication to his target audience? He failed and has pie on his face that he now needs to clean up.




Edited, Fri Sep 30 13:36:58 2005 by Elderon

Do you blame him?

Smelly darkies.

You people are so caught up in your knee jerk reactionism that anything that comes out of someones mouth, or in a written response, gets that careful scrutiny to see just where you can pick apart and find fault.

Here are the facts:

A book was written in which the author equated abortion with lower crime.

A caller asked an unknown question.

Crime is higher among minorities, both on a per capita and gross total basis.

"Blacks" are a large minority group.

If you abort all the black babies, there will be no more blacks.

If there are no more blacks, there will be no more black crime.

In Bill Bennett's opinion that would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do,..."

So, here are the questions. They are simple, since you people miss the point by such a wide margin as to be walking the other way:

Which of those facts can you dispute?

As those facts are indisputable, how can they be considered characterization?

Can a fact be racist?

Since a fact can't be racist, how is speaking factually logically equated to being racist, as elderon posited?

EDIT:I find that very hard to believe.

Edited, Fri Sep 30 13:55:31 2005 by MoebiusLord

Example:

Facts:
Jews are known to be good with money. -insert historical evidence here-
To "Jew" someone, became a synonym for "haggle".

Without being malicious, you can still be a racist and not realize it. There is a difference between open bigotry and being conditioned by your environment. Without looking at grey areas (keep to black and white), someone who has no idea that saying someone "Jewed" me down is racist, would be considered just as evil as the grand dragon of the KKK.

On this premis, he is a dirty bigot. In terms of is he REALLY a racist as[b][/b]shole, damn good chance that he is not.


You lose on the technicallities Moe, not intent.

I'm with you here, except of the end of that sentence. Some people really don't realize how conditioned they are. I don't think it makes him an ***. I think it's an opportunity for self-growth. If he's the kind of man Moe says he is, I hope he gives it some serious thought.

Edited, Fri Sep 30 14:20:08 2005 by Atomicflea

I'm not down with it either, it was simplifying it into very clear terms without assigning any weighting to the right and wrong. There are grey areas in everything, but for the sake of example sometimes it becomes more clear if you categorize using extremes. IMO anyway.

Moe, why do you hate darkies? It's the ***** thing isn't it.




It applies to many -isms.




Edited, Fri Sep 30 14:26:38 2005 by Elderon