In response to the above point, an obvious one, made by GOP Presiential hopeful Nikki Haley, Jemele Hill actually wrote this…
“So part of the reason racism is such a terrible sickness in this country is because politicians like this know they can rally a certain base with the fear of OH MY GOD A BLACK WOMAN MIGHT BE PRESIDENT IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR ME. Then we want to act all surprised when the most hateful part of the base decides they need to act out on their feelings of hatred.”
Jemele Hill is a professional and shameless race-baiter, but one might think that even she might see just a hint of another reason, other than race, why a rational voter would not want to see Kamala Harris in the White House. Harris is an unqualified, babbling, incompetent fool. (Her Ethics Alarms dossier is here.) Unlike other fools in Washington D.C., she isn’t even good at hiding it. This is why she polls as the most unpopular Vice-President in U.S. history. Haley’s point has bite because the “certain base” she is trying to rally is the portion of the population that thinks Presidents should actually be able to do the job, and that mere x chromosomes and skin shade alone—the reasons Harris was selected to be Joe’s shaddow—aren’t enough. Her message is not how Hill characterized it, but rather, “OH MY GOD A BABBLING MORONIC PHONY MIGHT BE PRESIDENT IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR ME.”
Is it possible that Jemele Hill is really so brain-damaged by her race obsession that she really thinks candidate-of-color Haley was making a racist dog-whistle? Remember Hanlon’s Razor, as stated by Robert. J. Hanlon, tells us to “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is Hill malicious or stupid?
Other questions to ponder: How is someone like Jemele Hill regularly employed by supposedly respectable publications (The Atlantic publishes her junk)? If she were not a black woman, would she have had any career in journalism at all? Does she identify with Harris, as another unqualified fool who has exploited tribal reparations to achieve undeserved success? Does Jemele Hill actually influence anybody? How many?
Ethics Alarms 
I believe she is stupid rather than malicious (although she may be both). This reminds me of the 2008 campaign for the Democratic nominations when some female celebrity (I can’t remember which) said “Republican men wouldn’t vote for Hillary because she is a strong woman and Republican men don’t like strong women.” Because otherwise Republican men are very likely to vote for the Democrat.
In politics I’m at the point where I don’t make a distinction between malice and stupidity. If anybody is in a position to make a bad decision that will affect me I do not care if it’s because they are idiots or they hate me. They are willing to use their power and influence in a way that affects me negatively, so I am willing to treat them as idiots and villains to make sure they go away.
Yikes—somehow the graphic referred to laying out Haley’s statement was dropped. My apologies. It’s restored now.
Neither. She’s an ideologue, the worst kind. I’d bet my last dollar that she’d call you a racist for saying KH was selected to be Biden’s “shadow,” because calling any person of color a shadow is per se racist.
She’s a card carrying wokester. Malice and stupidity are irrelevant measures. She’s a critical race theory proponent so anything and everything is attributable to white supremacy and systemic racism. Stupidity and malice are beside the point. She’s a true believer. How does she know anything? Because Ibram X. Kendi told her so.
I was going to put it a bit more succinctly… “When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” But spot on, OB.
Hah! Yes. Couldn’t figure out how to fit the hammer and nail thing in, AIM.
And her father taught at an historically black college! No points for that?
Ooops, Should be below regarding who’s more of color than whom.
Other Bill said “Malice and stupidity are irrelevant measures”.
Malice is a requirement for any woke leadership position and stupidity a requirement for their followers.
It’s there a portion of the voting base that will not vote for the current administration primarily due to fear of a non-European female holding the presidency?
In a pool of hundreds of millions of voters, sure.
Does Nikki Hailey believe this voting block is significant enough for a politician to court without the messaging alienating a larger population of voters?
Seriously doubtful.
Jemele Hill is claiming both that Nikki believes this to be true and the messaging has taken place. She’s not even cited an example, like Trump’s “very fine people” misquote.
I want to say malicious, but the statement as a whole is literally garbage. “Racism is bad because politicians might be supported by racists, the most hateful of which act out.”
Stupid is my vote.
For those of you scoring at home, both Haley’s parents are Indian! Harris’s mother is Indian, and her Jamaican father doesn’t think of himself or his daughter as being African American. Obama’s mother was white. Why isn’t Haley given her due as marginalized and therefore historic? Easy, she’s not a Democrat, she’s a Republican. I guess she’s white Indian.
Both of Hailey’s parents are Punjabi. Punjabi is an Indo-Aryan group, having integrated from Eastern Europe, through central Asia and into Northern India. Genetically they are dark skinned Europeans.
Harris’s mom is from what is now Tamil Naidu. Tamil is a branch of Dravidian. Dravidian came via Egypt and then Iran.
Visiting southern India makes one well aware of the ethnic differences, as it is quite noticable.
When you attack someone because you reject (or fail to consider) the possibility that you could reason with them, malice and stupidity are one and the same.
I am unimpressed with how poorly people attempt to “reason” with each other before concluding that it’s impossible. There are some people impervious to reason, but far fewer than people seem to believe, and those impervious people can be swayed when their more reasonable friends change their minds.
The vast majority of people I’ve interacted with are open to reason; they just don’t think their opponents are. I’m here to put an end to the irony.
If I’m understanding your comment correctly, I think you’re implying that Jemele Hill should have attempted to sit down and reason with Nikki Haley, explain how Haley was wrong, possibly sway Haley’s opinion to Hill’s way of thinking and then come to a mutual consensus instead of Hill attacking Haley with claims of racism. Am I understanding the implications of your comment correctly?
Sorry, I used ambiguous phrasing there. When I say it’s important to consider the possibility that a person can be reasoned with, I mean to consider that they might be a reasonable person who has some legitimate objections to something. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all their objections will be defensible or that their proposed solution will be wise.
It would be backwards for Hill to attempt to “explain why Haley was wrong.” That’s not how the reconciliation and deconstruction methods work. That’s not how to effectively reason with people.
For Hill, if someone doesn’t like her presidential candidate, she should ask herself why that might be. Doing so will not only help her interact with people she disagrees with, but will also help her to explore ways her presidential candidate might appeal to more people, or failing that (as is likely in this case), to explore other candidates she herself may support.
EC wrote, “…consider that they might be a reasonable person who has some legitimate objections to something.”
In general I think that’s a reasonably fair approach so let’s apply that to this issue.
So based on what Jemele Hill wrote about Nikki Haley’s statement and without trying to read between the lines for either of them…
1. Do you think Jemele Hill’s characterization of Nikki Haley as a racist dog whistler was reasonable? Yes/No
2. Do you think Jemele Hill has some legitimate race based objections to what Nikki Haley actually said? Yes/Maybe/No
3. Does Jemele Hill seem like a reasonable person to you? Yes/Maybe/No
4. Was Nikki Haley’s statement reasonably self-evident? Yes/No
5. What do you honestly think the purpose of Jemele Hill’s tweet was?
6. How should the public react to Nikki Haley’s statement?
7. How should the public react to the tweet by Jemele Hill?
1. Do you think Jemele Hill’s characterization of Nikki Haley as a racist dog whistler was reasonable? Yes/No
Without knowing much anything about either person other than what is in Jack’s post, no. It is valid for Hill to suspect that Haley is trying to imply that Harris’s ethnicity is a reason for people to oppose her becoming president, but unless Haley has demonstrated racist inclinations or a trend of subtly appealing to racism (actual racism, not just what Democrats say is racism), it is not responsible to assert that that’s definitely what she’s doing.
2. Do you think Jemele Hill has some legitimate race based objections to what Nikki Haley actually said? Yes/Maybe/No
Maybe. Haley is assuming that merely pointing out Harris is next in line for the presidency would cause people to balk, which does leave ambiguity as to why Haley is so confident people won’t like Harris. (We would hope that the reason is that people are applying critical thinking to Democratic policies and politicians.) It would be valid for Hill to voice her concerns, and to call for legitimate criticism of Harris as evidence that opponents are not dismissing an otherwise good candidate because of racism.
3. Does Jemele Hill seem like a reasonable person to you? Yes/Maybe/No
Maybe. Give me an hour with her and I’ll let you know. People are unreasonable because they’re afraid that something bad will happen if people don’t do a specific thing. Addressing people’s fears is the first step towards getting them to be reasonable.
4. Was Nikki Haley’s statement reasonably self-evident? Yes/No
Yes. If we knew nothing else about Joe Biden other than his age and gender, he is 80 years old. A casual Wikipedia check indicates the average life expectancy for a 60-year old male human in the United States is about 22 more years. Then factor in everything else we know about Biden. The conclusion is that he’s a placeholder; his party is afraid of running anyone else because they never learned how to figure out substantial policies that most people can get behind.
5. What do you honestly think the purpose of Jemele Hill’s tweet was?
Hill seems to think that Haley was deliberately appealing to racism in order to drum up support. She leaves it ambiguous as to whether Haley herself is racist. It is possible that Hill doesn’t actually believe Haley is appealing to racism, but the most effective approach is to treat Hill’s statement as sincere as long as I leave room for indications that it is not.
I regard Hill’s tweet as an expression of frustration that there are some people out there who not only consider ethnicity to be a compelling reason to vote for or against someone, but who are also afraid enough or contemptuous enough of people of other ethnicities that they can be prompted to harrass, attack, or otherwise act unethically towards them just by being reminded of their existence in an ominous manner. There are constructive ways of dealing with such people, but silencing criticism of politicians based on their ethnicity is not one of them.
6. How should the public react to Nikki Haley’s statement?
As with Hill’s statement, it’s most effective to take it at face value: It’s calling out the news media for hiding other people (not to mention Biden himself) behind Biden’s bland, genial facade. Whoever is on the Democratic ticket for vice president is a more relevant consideration than Joe Biden, given the latter’s condition, so we should plan accordingly. If anyone starts to push the sentiment into racist territory, we can address them separately.
7. How should the public react to the tweet by Jemele Hill?
They acknowledge what I said in item 5, and then go out and address the fears that lead people to subscribe to racism, without silencing political criticism.
EC,
Thanks for your reply.
Personally I think that since Nikki Haley’s statement is reasonably self-evident (and you agree with that) then Jemele Hill’s racist dog whistling implications are completely unreasonable and an unsupported extrapolation of what was written. Hill’s statement is an intentional libelous statement (unsupportable lies) and anything short of outright open public condemnation of her clearly obvious hateful and unethical lies will enabling Hill and others like Hill to spew more of their hateful lies. This is the perfect place for an unyielding rhetorical hammer and anything short of that is enabling.
Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.
It’s 100% clear to me that Jemele Hill is trying to intentionally damage Nikki Haley’s reputation with written defamation. Whether Hill is liable for her defamation in civil court is not likely but it doesn’t change what Hill is intentionally trying to do. In my opinion, Hill is morally bankrupt.
This is the exact same false accusations of racism that became way too acceptable to the political left during President Obama’s administration. I completely understand that Haley is a public figure and any words short of open physical threats to her is considered free speech, but this is terribly wrong, it’s immoral behavior and until Hill and others like Hill publicly suffer for their intentional defamation nothing will change. Race baiting liars like Hill need to figuratively have the equivalent of a scarlet letter plastered on them so they can be publicly humiliated for their lies where ever they go.
I’ll end with this; Vice President Harris is a verifiable word-salad babbling totalitarian moron and anyone wielding accusations of racism towards people that opposes Harris becoming President of the United States because she is a word-salad babbling totalitarian moron are morally bankrupt and morons.
It sounds like the issue here is habits. Are you worried that by using the subtle approach, you’re validating a person’s habit of subscribing to destructive beliefs?
There is another habit that is relevant in this situation: people have a habit of tuning out other people who loudly disagree with them, especially when they employ insults. People see you the way you see them: terminally misguided or actively malicious, and a waste of time to talk with. A rhetorical hammer wielded against them does less than nothing. It provides them more “evidence” that anyone who disagree with them has no compelling arguments, only insults and empty assertions. I’ve seen this happen from the perspective of the hammer-user and from the sidelines.
If you want to change someone’s mind, you have to get inside it first. They have to trust that you understand what they care about and why, that you’re not just trying to get them to accept costs and risks to make things easier for you.
Showing people respect does not “enable” them. When I show respect and establish that trust, my statements have statements a great deal more weight with them, infinitely more than if I started out by accusing them of being deluded. Then I make them think about problems their assumptions can cause, and better approaches that could get them what they really want without causing so many problems.
In my experience, the (relative) subtlety of the deconstruction method is more effective, more satisfying, and more devastating than a hammer. People change their minds and they thank me for it.
Jack asked, “Is Hill malicious or stupid?”
I think the correct answer is “yes”.
1. Hill is likely stupid enough to swallow, as fact, any narrative that the political left presents.
2. It’s very clear to me that the sole purpose Hill has for writing is to intentionally do harm to those that oppose the political left’s narratives, so yes Hill’s attacks are pure malice. In my opinion, Jemele Hill is a political hack and a political attack dog that cares nothing about actual truth and facts.
To find Hill guilty of stupidity would require finding The Atlantic guily of negligence and incompetence for publishing stupidity, unless The Atlantic is guilty of malice itself. No matter how you slice it, neither should be given the time of day again.
In “Woke World,” competence and merit are always trumped by identity affiliation and grievance. If you can throw in some intersectionality, it makes you unassailable. You’re always right, even when you seem stupid or malicious to normal folks.
I don’t think it comes down to a stupid/malice binary. Hill is part of the woke crowd, so she has to reflexively defend any other wokesters who are criticized. Racism is just a convenient defense for any woke people who are anything other than lily white. It’s much easier to rationalize that Haley is one of those icky conservatives so she must be bad, rather than anyone who dislikes Harris is racist.
It is quite similar to Zimmerman becoming a “white hispanic” during the Trayvon Martin stupidity. I don’t think the leftists literally believed in something as stupid as a white hispanic, it was just an easy way to signal that Zimmerman is no longer one of the woke allies. See also the recent Trump comments about election riggers. You don’t hear complaining about words like digger or bigger because they might sound like a racial slur, it was just an easy way to smear Trump, who of course the woke hate.
Very much the same thing for the last questions. The Atlantic doesn’t care about the quality of what they publish, just the political implications. Otherwise they would have talented conservative journalists employed as well. Rather they want people who can regurgitate woke talking points, so Hill gets the job.
The entire episode isn’t about what Haley said, but rather the type of person saying it. No one at the Atlantic is going to publish about how Gavin Newsome is making racist dog whistles if he calls Harris a moron.
I guess I would pick malicious, as it is all an exercise in tribalism and makes sense from that perspective, rather than stupidity.
You should read the comments under Hill’s Tweet…
Here’s mine reply to her Tweet…
Here is a link to the Hill Tweet…
Is Hill malicious or stupid?
Embrace the healing power of “and.”
Malicious because she intended to smear a Republican woman “of color” as a racist dog-whistler.
Stupid because she probably believes her own swill.
Anyone else notice how interested the media is in Mitch McConnell’s two recent indications of his age while standing at the podium? Where he locks up in an apparent daze?
Quite interested.
Barely any recognition at all that this is essentially the perpetual state of the President.
It looks to me like McConnel might be having some kind of mild seizure which is likely treatable. I remember watching a High School marching band classmate way back in 1972 do the exact same kind of thing, he was later diagnosed with epilepsy and treated; he didn’t have the kind of seizures that locked up his whole body. If this is happening in view of the public, like it has twice now, you know good and well it’s happening out of the view of the public too. If McConnel can’t get appropriate treatment for what’s causing this he should resign.
To be fair (and, arguendo, taking Mitch McConnell the individual out of the discussion), being a Senator isn’t the same as driving a car or operating heavy machinery. The occasional seizure, while disruptive and embarrassing, isn’t really an impediment to doing the job of U.S. Senator. Even if they are happening frequently (however you want to define that) it’s not as if they alone are causing diminished mental capacity or total incapability to appear in the Senate chamber for committee meetings and voting.
I’m no fan of McConnell but I think it goes too far to suggest that having seizures–and that alone–is cause for a Senator to have to resign.
–Dwayne