Nothing like dancing camels to end a perfect day. If only this had been a perfect day…
Meanwhile, I’m so proud! Having told my undergraduate institution that it had so embarrassed me that I would not be attending my BIG reunion this Fall, which I once was looking forward to greatly, it was thrilling to see my law school alma mater, which I also worked for over the next four years after graduation (It liked me! It really liked me!), receive a major honor. Yes, The FIRE named Georgetown University Law Center one of the 10 Worst on its yearly list of educational institutions that do not adequately respect and bolster freedom of speech.
Congratulations, GULC! You’ve worked hard for this the last few years, and the honor is richly deserved.
1. Quit, Whoopi, but let me write your resignation letter. It is being reported that Whoopi Goldberg is furious that she was suspended by ABC for her dumb, ill-considered, offensive but provocative comments about the Holocaust on the dumb, ill-considered, offensive but provocative show “The View.” Her worst statement? I vote for “Well, this is white people doing it to white people. So, this is y’all go fight amongst yourselves.” That was part of her explanation of why the “Final Solution,” in which Hitler’s crazies decided to see the purification of the white race by exterminating “lesser races” like the Semites—just guess what would have happened to the Whoop’s people when Germany took over the U.S. by getting the A-Bomb first!—wasn’t about race. She feels, we are told,“humiliated” at being disciplined after she followed their advice to apologize. No, no, that’s not what Whoopi should quit over. Charles C.W. Cooke explains it well in “Whoopi Goldberg’s Suspension from The View Is Illiberal and Irrational” at the National Review. Meanwhile, many are asking the unanswerable question, how come Disney, who owns ABC, fired actress Gina Carano when she said on social media—not on TV, not under Disney’s banner, that the repressive political speech climate reminded her of Nazi Germany. The “Mandalorian” star was also dropped by talent agency UTA and Lucasfilms, leading some writers to compare her treatment to the Fifties blacklist. Whoopi got a relatively minor two-week suspension. Double standard there, obviously: Whoopi is a black progressive, Carano is a white conservative. Neither should be punished for an opinion unrelated to their competence at their job. If Whoopi quits, she could do some good by making it clear that it’s in defense of free speech and people being unafraid to speak freely.
2. “Oops! Caught us!” The Anti-Defamation League caved to the “only you whites can be racist,” “it isn’t what it is” mob when it changed its definition of racism on its website to
“The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”
It used to read, “Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.” Nobody noticed until recently, though the change occurred in July on 2020. Hmmm, what was happening…oh! Right! The ADL was caving to the George Floyd Freakout! How courageous.
Now that the ADL is being hammered for its one-way racism Orwellism, it has pulled down the new definition and has an “interim definition:”
Racism occurs when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.
“Interim” how? Until the heat is off and the ADL can sneak in another woke definition?
3. Fighting off schadenfreude with a stick...Adrienne Sophia Exum, 19, was killed by an drunk driving illegal immigrant who would have been deported under Trump law enforcement policies, but under Biden’s immigration policies, he will be allowed to stay in the United States. Adrienne’s mother appeared on Fox News to say she devastated. “Truth be told, this was literally my first time voting, and I voted for you [Biden] and I feel disappointed right now. I don’t understand,” she said. “I thought he was going to talk for the American people, basically, and not for himself,” she said. “I don’t feel that he has done anything but disappoint.”
So in her first time voting, she picked a mentally declining life-time political hack who was being used as a prop by an openly radical Democratic Party that called those who believed that immigration laws should be enforced at the border and afterward racists and xenophobes.
How could anyone be disappointed who was paying attention? And if you weren’t paying attention, why were you voting?
4. Fighting off schadenfreude with a stick, the sequel: CNN President Jeff Zucker resigned today after failing to disclose a romantic relationship he had with another senior executive. He said in a statement
“As part of the investigation into Chris Cuomo’s tenure at CNN, I was asked about a consensual relationship with my closest colleague, someone I have worked with for more than 20 years. I acknowledged the relationship evolved in recent years. I was required to disclose it when it began but I didn’t. I was wrong. As a result, I am resigning today.”
It’s worse than that. The relationship was with Allison Gollust, the executive vice president and chief marketing officer of CNN Worldwide. She was formerly an advisor to disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.), according to the New York Times….just like Chris Cuomo.
Cuomo, Lemon, Toobin, Zucker. This is a corrupt and untrustworthy news organization, just like its arch enemy, Fox News.
5. NOW you tell us…From a just-released study at Johns Hopkins:
Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission […]
In Edmonton, Canada, isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed; and business hours were restricted without obvious impact on the epidemic.” Our findings are also in line with Allen’s (2021) conclusion: “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid 19 deaths”…
Mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others….
Unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized. We already pointed to the possible unintended consequence of SIPOs, which may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness. But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality…
The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.
I’m now recalling this post…which, by the way, the esteemed commenter here that it was dedicated to never commented on. Like the fireman rushing in from the pouring rain—“very strange.”
6. Policy question: “The Stupidity Rule.” Among the things that can get one banned from the comment section, as stated in the Ethics Alarms Comment Policies, is the Stupidity Rule: “which holds that some people are just too ignorant or stupid to take part in the discussion here, and interfere with the orderly exchange of opinions and ideas.” I have seldom had to use the SR, because stupid and ignorant people tend not to read ethics sites, and the commentariat here is sufficiently intimidating to keep the unqualified lurking. However, I am sorely tempted to apply the rule on a recent commenter, whom I don’t believe is a troll. I regard badly reasoned, careless, emotional and inarticulate comments like broken windows: allow them, and everything rots. My friend “A Friend” argues (articulately) that applying tough standards to comments helps create an “echo chamber.” But if the remedy for an echo chamber is to allow nonsense and farting sounds, It’s not worth it. The seconds it takes me to read a dumb comment is time I could have used to fix typos. When a commenter accuses me of pedantry for insisting on the distinction between evidence and proof, the SR starts looking awfully inviting…
Ethics Alarms 
#4:
Allison Gollust hasn’t resigned as well?
I wondered about that too. But then, she was the subordinate, acting under the compulsion of a man with superior power. So in her case the relationship wasn’t consensual.
I understand the idea that bosses hold considerable economic power over subordinates and creates the issue that a consensual agreement cannot be had. Unfortunately, I believe that we too often fail to acknowledge that subordinates can exercise psychological power over bosses who may be emotionally vulnerable. Given that these relationships are typically male bosses and female subordinates I wonder if our own antiquated male perspectives of “being protectors of women” are blinding us to possibility that woman can and do exercise considerable power over males irrespective of relative rank.
I would posit that not every man sees himself as god’s gift to woman and can succumb to the attentions of an attractive subordinate who is playing him to get what they want. I have witnessed this behavior, so I know it has occurred. I don’t know how frequently it happens but to place all the responsibility on the superior for these relationships allows the behaviors of subordinates to go on with impunity.
But Chris, that’s why they get paid the big bucks. They know the rules, or should—often they made those rules. They know the boss is often a target of ambitious female (or male) employees. And they know, or should, that inter-office or inter-organizational romantic entanglements are destructive and wrong. If they don’t have the intelligence, self-control and good judgment to say “No!” then they shouldn’t be in charge. It really is simple as that. Yet Maxine Waters used the “manipulative girls” defense to excuse Bill Clinton. I meant to also note, but didn’t that a leader breaking his own rules is what appears to be bringing down Boris Johnson in the UK. The same should be true of Pelosi, and the various mayors and governors.
Jack wrote, “If they don’t have the intelligence, self-control and good judgment to say “No!” then they shouldn’t be in charge. It really is simple as that.”
EXACTLY!!!
I’ve been in the position that Chris described more times than I care to mention. If a male person in charge can’t effectively keep their dick out of their subordinates then they shouldn’t be in the position, period. Here’s a good phrase to remember when it comes to being in charge of anyone, it’s fine to be friendly but don’t be friends, and never hire family!
blows me away that masking, social distancing, lock downs all had NO science behind them, yet they were imposed on a people using fear about a virus with a high recovery rate.
The scientists who knew things about things that impacted certain people (geographically and with co morbidities) who caught it were silenced and their accurate information back then never came to light.
Blow my mind that most everything that was marked as the new buzzword, “misinformed “ ended up being true.
Sickens me that we still ha e this bull crap going on… and even now when the CDC has finally admitted the the jabs increase myocarditis in children, leaders are still
Pushing for them to get jabs!!!
On something that rarely harms them!
Fauci had to admit the most kids who allegedly died from it actually died from other things but had a positive COVID test.
Which of course gets hospital more money.
Why do we allow this?
How many more conspiracy theorists things need to be proven true?
Sickens me.
1.) Whoopi is clearly using the ADL’s previous definition of racism (only white people can be racist). It’s interesting to note the history of the word “racism”. This is from the “racism” Wikipedia entry:
“…the popular use of the word racism is relatively recent. The word came into widespread usage in the Western world in the 1930s, when it was used to describe the social and political ideology of Nazism, which treated “race” as a naturally given political unit”
Google has a neat feature that plots word frequency in books published in English by year (“Google Ngram Viewer”). Here’s the plot for “racism”:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=racism&year_start=1920&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3
(It only goes to 2019. Presumably, there will be an uptick that starts in 2020)
So, going by the ordinary definition of racism, Whoopi could not be more wrong. I wish, instead of redefining words that already have a well understood meaning, activists would just invent new words. So much confusion could be avoided this way. (Yes, I know, the confusion is intentional).
“Neither should be punished for an opinion unrelated to their competence at their job.”
Isn’t making a statement like “The Holocaust wasn’t about race” on the talk show you host, thus bringing a metric ton of shit down on yourself and the network that employs you, a pretty strong indicator that you’re not competent at hosting a talk show?
Carano’s post on her personal social media account pretty obviously has nothing to do with her competence as an actress, but Goldberg’s idiocy seems directly related to her job, as the moronic statement in question was made as part of her doing the job. It’s not a question of whether the opinion itself is unacceptable; it’s the stirring of a hornet’s nest and creating pain for your employer that’s at issue here. There are few ways to get fired from any job that are quicker or more certain than causing your boss to get a bunch of irate phone calls he doesn’t want to deal with.
Yes, that’s a fair analysis. That’s why Disney/ABC’s differing responses to the two women, in addition to being censorious, were the King’s Pass in action. Whoopi is a bigger star, and “The View,” which is inexplicably popular and makes money, might well fall without her.
Also, a talk show host gets a pass from me when a genuine gaffe arrives. Talking extemporaneously for a living is hard, and botches are inevitable. Joy Behar, in contarst, just says stupid, ignorant things routinely: they’re not gaffes, that’s who and what she is, an opinionated fool. No, I think opinionated fools don’t deserve TV platforms, and do genuine harm to society. But she makes money for ABC too.
To be fair, Joy never said those things, hackers hacked the feed to her show and deepfaked words into her mouth. (/s)
I’m not sure where to put this, but it’s related to #2 and the “Only whites can be racist” rule. It concerns the remarkable sanitizing and disappearance of the case of would-be mass shooter Matthew Harris. Reading mainstream news sources, you would have found out he planned a mass shooting in Boulder. You would have learned he left a rambling 800-page manifesto. You might, if you read far enough and in the right publication, have found a mention there were some kind of racial themes in that manifesto.
What you won’t find in any mainstream publication is the big picture, where a black university lecturer with a PhD shared concocted a violently racist fantasy that makes Mein Kampf sound positively genteel. You will not see him described as a “black supremacist” even though that’s what he explicitly is. You will find no hand-wringing about how racial grievance studies, now considered mainstream in academia, fed into his hate, his delusions, and his ultimate radicalization. And if you look at the news today, 2 days after the story broke, you probably won’t find anything at all unless you’re actively searching for it.
#5 I briefly commented on this article on January 31. It appears to have been almost if not totally ignored by the MSM. Dr Makary a professor at Johns Hopkins said on Fox, “Johns Hopkins itself did not even put out a press release about this study, and if you look at the media coverage, it’s one of the biggest stories in the world today, and yet certain media outlets have not even covered it.” I expected to see a plethora of articles from the usual sources debunking it, but haven’t found one yet.
#6 Something interesting that I’ve noticed after many, many years of participating in online discussions is that whether a person is trolling or stupid the end result in their commentary is quite similar a lot of the time, one of the most prominent things I’ve seen from both stupid people and trolls is how they present obtuseness and engage in sealioning and when that happens in a conversation intent becomes irrelevant. Ignorance can be fixed if the ignorant person is willing to learn; however, trolls and stupid people cannot be fixed and sometimes it’s impossible to tell the difference.
#5 “Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Now if we’re all really fair about this and remember way back to the early part of 2020, the argument for the lock downs was not to reduce mortality rates, it was to lower the bell curve of infections from a tall narrow bell curve to a shorter fatter bell curve in an effort to reduce the quantity of infected people with serious complications that needed hospital care any given point in time so we didn’t completely overwhelm hospitals across the USA with acute care patients. The shift in the bell curve shouldn’t have been interpreted as an overall reduction of mortality rates; sure by attempting to shift these deaths out over time and not overwhelm hospitals you could assume that there could be some lives saved but it’s impossible to prove one way or the other. We will never actually know if the lock down did what it was intended to do because we don’t have data to prove what would have happened if they hadn’t locked down the country, it’s all statistical conjecture.
What we can definitively determine as results of the lock down and the pure unadulterated COVID fear mongering is that the economy was destroyed, many thousands of jobs were lost and people died because some medical treatments were intentionally deferred.
Personally I think the lock down was a TERRIBLE idea and will go down in history as a massive blunder and the wildly shifting communication narrative that has been presented to the American people throughout the pandemic has been intentionally manipulative and has had many negative psychological side effects that we will be socially/personally dealing with for many years to come. Additionally; the mandates from the government and private companies are in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code and violates both our constitutional and human right’s. Also, I think it’s wildly hypocritical, medically unethical and just plain immoral of the medical establishment across the USA to constantly demonize medical doctors for trying to actually treat their COVID infected patients with readily available medications on an experimental basis while that same medical establishment was doing everything they could possibly do to force the general population to get an experimental vaccine; this hypocritical medical ethics blunder to punish Doctors that choose to treat COVID patients instead of letting them get deathly ill should be prominent in medical ethics text books for many years to come. There has been one massive blunder after another related to how the pandemic has been managed and all these blunders, inconsistent messaging, outright lies, demonizing anyone that disagrees with the hive mind have all set aflame one conspiracy theory after another.
Personally I think the messaging should have been consistent across the board for this entire pandemic and limited to encouraging – not mandating – everyone to wash their hands regularly, wear a decent mask when in relative close proximity to others, limit public exposure, and get a vaccine. A message encouraging all these kinds of things as being a civic duty would have gone a long way if it had been done consistently by everyone – government, companies, schools, restaurants, etc, etc. Plus they should have been openly encouraging medical Doctors across the USA to study alternative treatments using existing drugs, finding and allowing proven effective treatments for COVID early in the pandemic could have saved many, many lives.
I’m still wondering how anyone is getting away with suppressing the use and/or public awareness of antiviral drugs and other treatments for people who contract COVID with or without the vaccine. It seems like they should be immediately called on it and held to account. What’s interfering with that process, and how do we get it to happen anyway? I want people to suffer for their malfeasance towards the public health, almost as much as I want the malfeasance itself to end.
Extradimensional Cephalopod wrote, “I’m still wondering how anyone is getting away with suppressing the use and/or public awareness of antiviral drugs and other treatments for people who contract COVID with or without the vaccine.”
Pharmacists refuse to fill the prescriptions for the medications because they have swallowed the propaganda narrative plus the FDA has dictating that no drugs can be prescribed to treat COVID other than what they have preapproved, the FDA is literally controlling it all. Also the FDA, the CDC and a huge swath of Doctors and scientists are openly demonizing any effective COVID treatment that’s not preapproved by the FDA and their hive mind and they’re publicly smearing the doctors as quacks. At some point in time the ones that are doing the smearing and the ones intentionally preventing effective treatments are going to be sued in a court of law.
You are right Steve. It’s happening. A friend of mine is flying around the country meeting with AG’s and sadly, it’s gotten close but out of the blue, those ready to act suddenly have a “change” of all sorts… meaning… the corruption is deep. I won’t go into detail here as it’s not appropiate i don’t think but here’s a website he and some lawyers and other concerned people have set up.
Prosecutenow.com.
You can read the lawsuit, ready to be filed right there. I heard last week they may have an AG ready to take on this beast. Some who were ready to well… I’ll just leave it at that.
Take care. I am inspired by your comments btw. 🙂
Wow, what a terrible website.
Why? Because of content or because it’s not done? Curious 🙂
mermaidmary99,
I agree with Jack on this one. The site is not properly targeting all of it’s possible audience.
The site is one page and is so limited in what it is presenting to the public that it’s completely useless to anyone that isn’t willing to read, and reasonably capable of fully understanding, 25 pages of legalese. This kind of stuff makes most people’s eyes glaze over and blows straight over their heads.
The context presented on the website without clicking on any links is extremely limited. They need to have bullet points on the home page that give the website visitor a brief summary of who is doing this, what they’re trying to do, when they want to get this done, where it needs to take place, and why they’re trying to do it without forcing the visitor to download and read additional documents. In brief; who, what, when, where and why need to be presented in a short point by point presentation. They need to tell the public what the documents are going to tell them if they want to draw people into signing on to their proposal. Inspire website visitors to want to dive in and read the documents with a context that’s provided by the author.
As it sits right now, the limited site (with few exceptions) is just targeting bias. Singing to the choir is not a way to grow a movement, you must sing and convince the unbelievers.
The site needs more, much more!
You are right.
It was made quickly for some huge speaking events to point people who had asked about the information to a place to stay updated, etc.
Totally for the choir.
I’m going to pass along your suggestions to them.
I know they are working on adding stuff.
My understanding was it wasn’t to inform new people but to let those following closely know what jas been done so far with the lawsuits, etc.
Thank you for your comments. I totally agree. I shared with you guys because to me you’re way beyond the average person (and beyond me) and I thought you’d be interested in knowing what some are working tirelessly on to make sure those committing crimes are stopped.
Isn’t it insane we’re even talking about crimes against humanity in our country?
I’m really bad at history, so it just is hard to believe one set of humans would deliberately act to harm their fellow man.
Thanks for passing on the constructive criticism, hope they learn from it.
mermaidmary99 wrote, “I’m really bad at history, so it just is hard to believe one set of humans would deliberately act to harm their fellow man.”
Be careful when using the word “deliberately”, it hasn’t been proven yet that anything that Dr. David Martin is presenting related to the pandemic was actually “deliberate”. A couple of days ago Jack wrote, “All proof is evidence, all evidence isn’t proof.”, this concept must be applied. Right now there is evidence and not a lot of actual proof, so at this point in time we have correlation = causation arguments. Allow the discovery process to completely unfold (if a real investigation takes place) without being completely swallowed by the conspiracy theories. If a investigation doesn’t take place, that’s not proof of a criminal conspiracy. Don’t leap on the it’s all a criminal conspiracy band wagon quite yet, there could be other possibilities. Hanlon’s razor should be applied until malice is actually proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Because it is virtually unreadable. The only reader who would plow through any of that is someone who already knows what’s there. So the site isn’t informative, and it is so user-unfriendly that it will not make anyone change their mind. If you publish a court document, you summarize it first—you know, like Ethics Alarms does. Yes, it takes time. If I had to give a single word to describe that site, it would be “lazy.”
SW: …’but it’s impossible to prove one way or the other’… regarding whether lockdowns were useful. A few countries in Europe locked down for the first three months and then returned to pre-COVID living; they were no worse or better off than other 1st world nations that went the route of totalitarianism in order to reach zero infections. In the United States, Florida & California fared about the same, even though Florida has more people 65+ per capita.
We can look to 3rd world countries for examples where lockdowns were either not tried or not accepted by the people and find similar outcomes.
Regarding #1:
I’ve continued thinking about this Whoopi Goldberg incident (it gets hard to avoid, since it has not left the news cycle). The more I look at it, the more it appears that she was the smartest person in the room (low bar, indeed). Actually, I should say that, “the more I LISTEN to it,” she sounds like the smartest person in the room. When you see how the conversation progresses, you can see exactly how it goes off the rails, which is exactly what Whoopi explained would happen when you talk about race. This is excerpted from the account of the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60209527):
Goldberg begins: “If you’re going to do this, then let’s be truthful about it. Because the Holocaust isn’t about race. No, it’s not about race.”
Co-host Joy Behar pointed out that the Nazis said the Jews were a different race.
Goldberg said: “But it’s not about race. It’s not. It’s about man’s inhumanity to other man.”
Goldberg and Behar are talking passed each other, and Goldberg (probably) is the only one who is aware of that. Behar appears to be talking about the historical event; Goldberg appears to be talking about the lessons to be learned from history. The lesson to be learned from the history of the Holocaust is not that the German people hated the Jews; we already knew that; everybody already knew that. The lesson to be learned from the Holocaust is about the scope that man’s inhumanity to man can take.
You can talk about the Armenian genocide.
You can talk about the rape of Nanking.
You can talk about the Hutus and Tutsis.
You can talk about the oppression of the Irish by the English.
You can talk about slavery.
You can talk about the conquering of the Americas.
History is replete with examples of brutality visited by humans on other humans. But the lessons We learn from these incidents are not that X people committed atrocities against Y people. It is that any people (including YOU) could take part in such brutality against other people. For that lesson, there is probably no greater example than the Holocaust.
Of the other examples given above, none of them reached the level of detail, sophistication, deliberateness, and efficiency that you see in the Holocaust. (Insert German joke here.)
Simply look at the death camps. When I visit people in jail as part of my work, I am intrigued by the architecture. I know several architects, also as part of my work, but I’ve never visited any of them in jail. One of them specializes in designing dental offices. A certain level of knowledge about dentistry and the practice is probably needed to be good it designing dental offices. By the same token, there is probably a specialty in the architectural community for the designing of jails and prisons. The needs of a jail or prison require specific insight into the use of the space. The design of the death camps is particularly chilling, when you consider that some architect out there was probably tasked with designing a shower room that could be used as a gas chamber, with one entrance and one exit, the exit leading to a disposal facility for the bodies. This does not happen in a haphazard manner the way the Rwandan genocide or the rape of Nanking occurred.
Getting back to the discussion, Anna Navarro gives her $0.02 (I’m rounding up): “But it’s about white supremacy,” responded co-host Ana Navarro. “It’s about going after Jews and Gypsies and Roma.” Her first “cent,” the comment about white supremacy, was just typical idiocy; she had simply repeated the latest progressive buzz word (phrase) that is in fashion these days. Her second “cent,” was actually pertinent to Behar’s point. Unfortunately, her idiotic recitation of the white supremacy label dragged down the conversation. And Goldberg got dragged down with it.
“But these are two white groups of people,” countered Goldberg.
Co-host Sara Haines pointed out that the Nazis “didn’t see them as white”.
This exchange further derails the discussion. As she attempted to explain later, race is what you see. For many black people, especially where “passing for white,” is a real thing, her perspective is completely understandable. On the ground level, to her, the Holocaust was just a bunch of white people killing each other. Why should she care about that? Maybe she shouldn’t. She is not German and she is not Jewish. Of course, the lesson she drew from that, the lesson we should draw from that, is that any one of us could become as inhumane as the Nazis (and our victims don’t have to be Jewish to do it).
Goldberg continued: “But you’re missing the point! The minute you turn it into race, it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s how people treat each other. It’s a problem.”
Here is probably where Goldberg vindicates herself. I can barely say it better that she did. Once you talk about race, once you make an issue about race, the discussion ends. Ironically, the only black person on the panel (I presume, I don’t watch that garbage) did not want to pull out the race card. She knew and understood that nobody wants to have an honest discussion about race. Maybe she believes people are incapable of having an honest discussion about race. It can be difficult because, as many other commentators have noted in the last few days, it requires mental work to reason through the subtleties of the topic. So, she attempted to draw the discussion to the lesson to be learned from the Holocaust.
The aftermath of the show only proves that Goldberg was right. We are down the “alley” she was talking about.
-Jut
Good point, Jut. But you should have elaborated on the fact that all of Goldberg’s critics are focusing on the Jews, the victims of the Holocaust, while Whoopi, by focusing on man’s inhumanity to man comment implicitly refers to the conduct of the Germans in this entire scenario. On that point alone, you see how Goldberg’s focus is different from that of her critics.
-Jut
Ah, that clears up my confusion about about the possible reason for the emphasis on “visible race.” I’m hoping that’s what she meant, because once people start realizing how to actually learn from history, we can start having constructive conversations. Thanks, Jut!
EC,
I am pretty sure that is what she meant. I heard another clip that came from Colbert, I believe…
Hell, I will look it up: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/whoopi-goldberg-clarifies-comments-about-the-holocaust-on-the-late-show
The relevant part:
“The American experience tends to be based on skin,” Colbert said, which Goldberg agreed with. “When you talk about being a racist, I was saying you can’t call this racism,” Goldberg responded. “This was evil. This wasn’t based on the skin. You couldn’t tell who was Jewish. They had to delve deeply to figure it out.” Goldberg tried to illustrate her point by posing a hypothetical in which the Ku Klux Klan approaches her while she is standing next to a Jewish person. “I’m going to run,” Goldberg said, receiving a laugh from the audience. “But if my friend decides not to run, they’ll get passed by most times because you can’t tell who’s Jewish.”
Her point seems valid today, but, even here, she might have been mistaken. There are tell-tale signs of being Jewish in some caricatures. They are less prominent now, then they might have been in the 1940s in Europe, but I think her point is well-taken, regardless.
-Jut
…apparently unaware that the KKK also targeted Jews. Whoopi has never heard the old “when you’re in a hole…” rule.
Sure, but they don’t like Catholics either, but I blend into a crowd of Protestants pretty easily.
-Jut
And, in fact, there were “Aryan”-looking Jews that managed to pass unnoticed with fake ids because they didn’t fit the stereotype. Whoopi’s assertion that she would be a more obvious target to the KKK than a Jewish person with white skin standing next to her is probably valid, though the ick factor applies.
On one, three and four… There are so many examples of things like this right now, it feels like winning. I’m not the politics whisperer or anything, but I have this internal barometer sometimes that tells me things. I was very clear that I thought the polls were grossly underestimating Donald Trump from the outset. I had inklings that Biden was going to win, but I resigned myself to it when Trump announced that he had Covid. This, now… I don’t think I’ve seen polling, forward momentum for Republicans and unforced errors by Democrats like this in my lifetime. 2022’s midterms are going to be insane.
The word that comes to mind is “Deserved.”