Unethical Quote Of The Week: Dan Rather, Ex-Respected Journalist

See, if Dan didn’t have that habit of using his ear as a pencil sharpener, he wouldn’t say silly things like this…

“When Trump criticizes “all types of racism” he’s using false equivalence to wink at those who peddle in the distortions of white grievance. It makes a mockery of our history and our present. It’s not calming and unifying. it’s provocative and divisive. And it’s intentional.”

—Dan Rather, in a recent tweet, signaling his virtuous acceptance of the convenient falsehood that anti-white racism isn’t racism at all.

Rather is saying it is “false equivalence” to call all forms of racism equally wrong. The level of ethical obtuseness required to make this statement is high and airless. For one thing, it is based on consequentialism, the fallacious but common misconception that the consequences of an unethical act make it more or less ethical. No one would seriously dispute that anti-black racism has more than lapped the field regarding the pain, harm and death that it has caused. That historical fact does not make anti-white racism any better, or an even-handed condemnation of both a “false equivalence.” Rather’s reasoning is poisoned  with rationalizations, like “it’s not the worst thing” and “they had it coming.”

What is dangerously “provocative and divisive” is the double standard enablers and apologists for anti-white racism are trying to justify.

Jonah Goldberg exposes ethical obtuseness of Rather and his compatriots, writing in the LA Times:

The notion that racism is solely about institutionalized white power simply doesn’t compute for most Americans. In common parlance, racism means prejudice or bigotry on account of race or skin color. Period. The pathetic racists who marched on Washington this weekend don’t have much cultural power. Surely that explains their racism more than it mitigates or absolves it…Even if we were to collectively accept that “racism” means structural oppression by whites, we’d still need a word for hating or degrading people solely on account of their race. Why reinvent the wheel? And why muddle the principle that this is bad?Think of it this way: Would you want your kids to go to a school where the white kids were taught that the slightest racial insensitivity was a profound sin but all the non-white kids were free to say whatever they wanted about the white kids?

It is right and proper to teach kids that bigotry against blacks or other particular groups is especially evil for historical reasons. But it is morally daft to celebrate or condescendingly explain away bigotry against whites as some sort of historical comeuppance for the sins — real or alleged — of their ancestors. (It’s also counterproductive: There’s ample evidence that calling non-racist people racist actually makes them more racist.)

Double standards breed resentment and rage, regardless of ideological orientation.

Exactly.

____________________________

Pointers: Mrs. Q; Amy Alkon

 

 

26 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Dan Rather, Ex-Respected Journalist

  1. Dan Rather was proven to be what he is now known to be during the 1992 presidential election when he claimed George H.W. Bush “cooked the books” on GDP growth to help his re-election bid. This not only was proven false, but it was later shown that second quarter 1992 GDP growth was actually higher than the “cooked” figure as the economy recovered from “the worst economy since the great depression” lie being propagated by Bill Clinton. But hey, accusing a president of cooking the books or colluding with Russia or any other crap the leftist media wishes to concoct to influence the American people is cool as long as it’s leftist.

      • Jonahs commentary is slightly different than what I had written. My focus was on the imperative to understand our past and stop holding the innocent accountable for past injustice. One cannot move forward if mired in the past. His focus was on how we define it and how we enforce the impermissable bias and allow permissable bias.

  2. Whenever I read about the concept of racism requiring power to be racism, it makes me wonder why the definition of racism says (From Merriam-Webster):

    1 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    2 a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

    3 racial prejudice or discrimination

    Nowhere is power mentioned in the definition, which means this is a new definition, not an accepted one. Goldberg nails this problem when he says:

    Even if we were to collectively accept that “racism” means structural oppression by whites, we’d still need a word for hating or degrading people solely on account of their race. Why reinvent the wheel?

    But it isn’t reinvention. The left is looking for a specific outcome here, not clarifying an age-old misconception. By characterizing racism as dependent upon power rather than as it has been defined since the word was invented, they accomplish Alinsky’s rule #11:

    11 “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside”

    The left has created the premise that only whites can be racist. In order for that to be true, there must be some way to demonstrate the truth of it, so they created the concept that power, i.e. majoritarianism, is required for “true” racism, i.e. that racism is dependent upon the power to make the victim suffer, and suffering is a requirement for racism.

    This perfectly encapsulates the desires of the left, and is one of their more brilliant constructions (if one discounts the amoral, frankly evil nature of it). By presenting the “power” requirement, they can isolate the demographic most likely to oppose their policies, define them as the inheritors of America’s original sin and by extension, indistinguishable from the Antebellum Southerners in terms of racial animus, even if not actually expressed.

    Note that this construction doesn’t require proof — it is in effect a tautology they way they explain it, i.e. racial majoritarianism and racism are equal and inextricable from each other, because of the power inherent in majoritarianism.

    The left has neatly insulated their own whites from “racism” by creating the concept of “white privilege,” which is really just a way for leftist whites to become accepted and not “racist,” because they recognize their “privilege” and subjugate it to the collective wisdom of the left.

    We must reject this concept and all it’s derivatives, not because it will require a redefinition of racism, but because it is an inherent rejection of freedom of thought and association. That’s why the left has taken up the banner of “hate speech” as outside the protection of the First Amendment. If this becomes accepted wisdom, it’s the “camel’s nose under the tent” for the First Amendment, and the beginning of the end for our democratic republic.

    This is perhaps the most insidious and destructive construction of the left if we, the people, don’t nip it in the bud.

    • The definition of racism is whatever the Hell the left needs it to be at the moment. That’s pretty much their approach to everything.
      Reminds me of my kids.

    • “Note that this construction doesn’t require proof — it is in effect a tautology they way they explain it, i.e. racial majoritarianism and racism are equal and inextricable from each other, because of the power inherent in majoritarianism.”
      Kind of like phrenology, or astrology, socialism, or most of Freud’s work. Like Karl Popper said; if it can’t be falsified, it’s not a valid hypothesis.

  3. “Would you want your kids to go to a school where the white kids were taught that the slightest racial insensitivity was a profound sin but all the non-white kids were free to say whatever they wanted about the white kids?”

    Any ruling-class liberal who reads this will reflexively think, “Eh. MY kids would just keep going to the most expensive religious schools. You know, the ones we don’t want those brown people to have vouchers for because they might get a classical education and start thinking for themselves.”

  4. Did anyone watch Tucker Carlson last night? He had a segment on a Houston area restaurant owner who owns “El Tiempo Cantina”, a Tex-Mex joint in Richmond – a suburb near Houston – serving tasty Mexican based dishes. As luck would have it, his restaurant was frequented by none other than A.G. Jeff Sessions (at whose name the mere mention of which all must boo – “Booooooo!”). Said restaurateur posed with Sessions for a photo (smiles and all that), which he posted on the restaurant’s Facebook page, expressing his gratitude and honor to have Sessions in his establishment.

    Begin the howls and unleash the Dogs of War! The response was swift, vicious, and thorough. The restaurant owner took down the photo and apologized for offending people, declaring that Sessions’ politics do not reflect the owner’s beliefs. Where did we hear that line before? Didn’t Rep. Waters suggest such a response? Move along

    As many of the readers of this blog know, I live in Houston (originally from Cleveland, OH, and MAN! It has been frickin’ hot and humid down here – please make it stop!) it is a local story and El Tiempo is actually pretty tasty, so the local news media have been all over the controversy. Cue the Local Latino Lynch Mob Furies to do their worst. They have called for a boycott of the restaurant to punish this owner for stepping out of line because he treated a member of the Trump Administration with deference and respect instead of unceremoniously “escorting” him out of the place after dumping salsa, guacamole, and tortilla chips on his head.

    Here is a link to the controversy posted by a Facebook friend with some pithy observation by your most humble correspondent:

    (Ed. Note: I do not apologize for declaring someone on that thread was an idiot. It was deserved. Generally, I think name calling is unethical and juvenile. However, to paraphrase what Mark Twain is reported to have said/written, it is better to leave people wondering if you are an idiot than to open your mouth or make a Facebook thread comment and remove all doubt.)

    Well, that brings me back to my original question: Did anyone watch Tucker Carlson last night? I did. He had a bit of a dust-up with a Univision correspondent about the story. It was simultaneously brutal and delicious. Here is a link to the interview:

    Carlson unmasked the Latino power structure’s position that if you step out of line of the accepted orthodoxy, you will be crushed. The reporter never saw it coming.

    Turning back to the Facebook thread I posted above, one commentator rejected my belief that restaurant owner had no obligation to mistreat Sessions. His response:

    “Eddie Cortes No John, he has to distance himself from people who do damage to his community & his people. Just as if David Duke came into his restaurant. Same thing. You can feed these assholes if you have to, but don’t take a picture w/ them. Don’t post it. But if you had any dignity, you’d ask them to leave.”

    Think about that comment for a second. This guy, a licensed attorney, says that the owner HAS to distance himself. There is no equivocation. It is a moral imperative. Failing to do so renders some restaurant owner equally culpable the sins – past, present, and future – of this nation. Wow.

    Not to be dissuaded, he later wrote this:

    “Eddie Cortes John V. Burger there is no taking it easy when they’re coming after Brown folks. And if you see Sessions as ‘prominent’ as opposed to a racist, xenophobic POS, you’re part of the problem.”

    We are in trouble.

    jvb

    • I love Tucker Carlson! He reminds me of Ben Shapiro; another conservative who never fails to verbally chop any leftist who haplessly wanders into his lair into mincemeat without so much as an “umm…”
      Oh, and that Texas heat? I just towed an airplane I won on eBay from Dallas a couple weeks ago, and I damn near got heatstroke just driving down the highway.

      • Oh, and did he say that Trump called Immigrants “animals”? I’m surprised he tried that with someone with a brain. Everybody that isn’t intentionally and voluntarily allowing themselves to be manipulated by these shameless purveyors of leftist propaganda, these yellow “journalists”, knows that he was referring to MS-13, who are, in fact, animals, and should be put down like rabid animals.

  5. “See, if Dan didn’t have that habit of using his ear as a pencil sharpener, he wouldn’t say silly things like this…”

    That just made my day!

  6. “No one would seriously dispute that anti-black racism has more than lapped the field regarding the pain, harm and death that it has caused.”
    That may still be true at the moment, but there are plenty of blacks out there doing their best to level the field. Refer to the books and videos of Colin Flaherty, a tireless chronicler of the vast amounts of racially-motivated anti-white violent crime, past and present, that the left-stream media has been sweeping under the rug.

  7. Rather is saying it is “false equivalence” to call all forms of racism equally wrong. The level of ethical obtuseness required to make this statement is high and airless. For one thing, it is based on consequentialism, the fallacious but common misconception that the consequences of an unethical act make it more or less ethical. No one would seriously dispute that anti-black racism has more than lapped the field regarding the pain, harm and death that it has caused. That historical fact does not make anti-white racism any better, or an even-handed condemnation of both a “false equivalence.” Rather’s reasoning is poisoned with rationalizations, like “it’s not the worst thing” and “they had it coming.”

    What is dangerously “provocative and divisive” is the double standard enablers and apologists for anti-white racism are trying to justify.

    These double standards are prime recruiting material for the Stormfront White Nationalist Community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.