Sharpton, the Bigot

[ParanoiA]

This is so sweet. Sharpton definitely should be made to apologize, over and over again on someone's radio show. And his apology should be met with hesitant forgiveness - depending on the wrecking of his career or not.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271162,00.html

 

This "mistake" is obviously a reflex of his bigotted beliefs that he usually can cover up.

 

Of course, none of that will happen. No one's going to make a big deal out of this except for Romney, and I hope he presses on. Imus made a mistake and admitted it like a big boy, in the face of an unforgiving Sharpton. Al won't even admit he did anything wrong.

 

Interesting how msnbc.com, cbsnews.com, abcnews.com and cnn.com don't have this story anywhere on their front page - if at all. Only Fox news is being remotely fair and reporting it. Imus got never ending slaughter from these news sites - but Sharpton gets a free pass.

 

It's almost like the media is biased....

 

Here's the message: Go ahead minorities...be as racist as you want, glorify double standards and practice all the bigotry you want...white people are too scared to call you out on it.

[swansont]

I have absolutely no use for Al Sharpton, but I think you really have to put some effort into it to take what he said, in this case, as being bigoted, and even more to put it on equal footing with Imus. Sharpton was debating an atheist at the time, so who is in a position to counter his claim — that he was contrasting himself with the atheist — isn't what he really meant?

 

Sharpton has given enough real indication of his character. No need to manufacture stuff.

[ParanoiA]

Sharpton was debating an atheist at the time, so who is in a position to counter his claim — that he was contrasting himself with the atheist — isn't what he really meant?

 

 

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."

 

How could anyone interpret that he's talking about the atheist? It's quite clear what he was saying. No slip of the tongue. He took his time saying it, pointing out the "one mormon" and contrasting himself by implying he doesn't really believe in god.

 

It's a huge stretch to say that doesn't compare to what Imus said. Maybe in today's anti-religious climate, the public just doesn't care - racism matters more. That's irrelevant, however, as to whether or not it is actually bigottry.

[PhDP]

Here's the message: Go ahead minorities...be as racist as you want, glorify double standards and practice all the bigotry you want...white people are too scared to call you out on it.

 

Racism ? Where ? "Mormon" is a race now ? There's nothing insulting in what he said, and even if it was, there's an obvious distinction between insulting people's beliefs and insulting people because of their set of genes.

 

Fox News is really pushing hard to create controversies ex nihilo, like that Madrasa fabrication.

[ParanoiA]

Racism ? Where ? "Mormon" is a race now ? There's nothing insulting in what he said, and even if it was, there's an obvious distinction between insulting people's beliefs and insulting people because of their set of genes.

 

Fox News is really pushing hard to create controversies ex nihilo, like that Madrasa fabrication.

 

Who said Mormon was a race? Read the entire message. With Imus going down for a racial comment while Snoop Dog makes millions with the same comment...

 

Definition of bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

Sharpton called Imus a bigot. Every popular corporate news outlet ran stories day after day about Imus the bigot.

 

Sharpton made the same comment a born and breed bigot would make. Period. And, just like the network news, you don't care. Because it's trendy to bash religion, people are now desensitized to it and don't recognize the offense in it. That shouldn't get Sharpton off the hook. Bigotry is the word he and others have used to justify wrecking Imus's career, so why not hold him to his own standard?

[PhDP]

Primo, there's nothing offensive about what he said. And secondo, religion is a belief, skin color is not, and it has nothing to do with trends.

 

What I find very trendy is the tendency to dilute real bigotry and intolerance with this kind of hysteria. There's a distinction between beliefs and DNA, you don't choose your DNA, and those who try to blur this distinction are often doing it to defend sexists, racists and homophobics.

[ParanoiA]

Primo, there's nothing offensive about what he said. And secondo, religion is a belief, skin color is not, and it has nothing to do with trends.

 

What I find very trendy is the tendency to dilute real bigotry and intolerance with this kind of hysteria. There's a distinction between beliefs and DNA, you don't choose your DNA, and those who try to blur this distinction are often doing it to defend sexists, racists and homophobics.

 

Also, those who try to pretend bigotry isn't bigotry are often doing it to defend homophobics, racists and bigots. White america did this for several decades, so we know what it looks like...

 

Sharpton in 1994: “White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

 

Sounds like homophobia to me does it not? Oh wait, he's not republican...never mind.

 

Sharpton also refuses to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players he tried and convicted in the court of corporate media.

 

There is no defense for him. If he was white I doubt you'd be arguing with me about it. And you still haven't told me why Al shouldn't be held up to his own standard.

 

This is as blatantly hypocritical as it can get.

[swansont]

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."

 

How could anyone interpret that he's talking about the atheist? It's quite clear what he was saying. No slip of the tongue. He took his time saying it, pointing out the "one mormon" and contrasting himself by implying he doesn't really believe in god.

 

It's a huge stretch to say that doesn't compare to what Imus said. Maybe in today's anti-religious climate, the public just doesn't care - racism matters more. That's irrelevant, however, as to whether or not it is actually bigottry.

 

People who believe in God, i.e. not people like the atheist across from me, will defeat him.

 

AFAIK it was a debate about the existence of God, and came after a part where Hitchins was trying to reduce the civil rights movement to a purely secular action, and was mixing up belief (or nonbelief) in dogma with belief in God. Ignoring the context of the comments is wrong.

[ParanoiA]

People who believe in God, i.e. not people like the atheist across from me, will defeat him.

 

But he said people who "really" believe in God. That implies one who claims to be religious, or believes in god. If he was refering to the athiest, it would have been obvious. That's quite a stretch to make it about the athiest.

 

AFAIK it was a debate about the existence of God, and came after a part where Hitchins was trying to reduce the civil rights movement to a purely secular action, and was mixing up belief (or nonbelief) in dogma with belief in God. Ignoring the context of the comments is wrong.

 

Who's ignoring the context of the comments? Have you read the context of Imus's comments? I challenge those who say they do, because clearly Imus's sidekick is just as bad as Imus - but nobody said anything about his remarks. Interesting...

 

In context, Sharpton was wrong. Sharpton said the words of a bigot.

[john5746]

I would love to see Sharpton fried, but I have to admit there is more gray area here than with Imus. I take the "really" to be against Romney as well, but I could see Sharpton saying that about Bush. It might have been more political than religious, ie the religious right will smack him down. He should still apologize, since that is what everyone seems to do, but maybe no rehab required?

 

Could you imagine Romney saying, you know those voters in South Carolina, they are authentic blacks. They will get rid of Obama in short order.

[ParanoiA]

I don't want to see him fried either, actually. I just want to see him be true to his word - to demonstrate apology and learn what it feels like to make a mistake in speech and be made to defend yourself from all of its spurs.

 

The thing that really stung me about the Imus controversy, was that Imus was so ridiculously apologetic and never seemed to "fight" back at all - just took his licks over and over again. He apologized to every camera, every group, every sub group - trying to right his wrong. But Sharpton acted like a 5 year old brat with his proverbial hand in the air, still demanding his termination.

 

So, objectively speaking, he doesn't deserve to fry. But in the context of his merciless attitude towards an old man's mistake - he deserves the same treatment he gave.

[Pangloss]

Primo, there's nothing offensive about what he said. And secondo, religion is a belief, skin color is not, and it has nothing to do with trends.

 

What I find very trendy is the tendency to dilute real bigotry and intolerance with this kind of hysteria. There's a distinction between beliefs and DNA, you don't choose your DNA, and those who try to blur this distinction are often doing it to defend sexists, racists and homophobics.

 

Right on. Damn those Jews anyway.

[swansont]

But he said people who "really" believe in God. That implies one who claims to be religious, or believes in god. If he was refering to the athiest, it would have been obvious. That's quite a stretch to make it about the athiest.

 

Who's ignoring the context of the comments? Have you read the context of Imus's comments? I challenge those who say they do, because clearly Imus's sidekick is just as bad as Imus - but nobody said anything about his remarks. Interesting...

 

In context, Sharpton was wrong. Sharpton said the words of a bigot.

 

And you know better than Sharpton what he meant. What did he mean by "temporary situation" ?

[ecoli]

Right on. Damn those Jews anyway.

 

wha..?

[ParanoiA]

What did he mean by "temporary situation" ?

 

I would imagine he meant Romney was only temporary because he thinks, and it's been debated, that a mormon would never make it through a republican primary.

 

Edit: Just wanted to throw in that Sharpton made an accurate statement, and I don't think mormons all over the country are outraged, or at least I haven't read that, and I personally have no issue with it...nor with Imus. That's the difference here. Neither one of these men need to be smacked around for a mistake. But hey, Sharpton has a special duty in this case, being the self appointed leader to this movement.

[Sisyphus]

Well, there are a few issues here.

 

Was that particular statement bigotted? I don't think so, at least not in the way you're suggesting. Bigotted against atheists, I guess. Context is important.

 

Is it a statement that warrants an apology in general? I don't think so. Maybe a "sorry for phrasing it poorly and if it was taken the wrong way" kind of thing would be appropriate.

 

Is it analogous to Imus' "nappy headed hoes" thing?Not exactly. Sharpton was being serious, but was probably misinterpretted. Imus was intentionally being racist, but as a joke. It is analogous inasmuch as a significant number of people might be offended by perceived bigotry. They are different in terms of intent.

 

Is Al Sharpton a hypocrite for refusing to apologize, while not even accepting Imus' apology?Pretty much, but it is debatable, because the intent was different. However, I would say he is hypocritical for taking the semblance of bigotry extremely seriously when it's directed towards blacks, but not in any other case.

 

Does Al Sharpton, as a public figure specifically devoted to combatting bigotry, have an extra responsibility to be careful in avoiding it himself? Probably?

 

Was Sharpton unreasonably harsh in his approach to the Imus incident? Yes, absolutely. Imus deserved a rebuke, maybe, but not to be made into a pariah. Lighten the **** up.

 

Is there "media bias" revealed in the discrepancy in coverage between the two incidents? Hardly. The news story with Imus was not what he said, but that so many people were offended, and the chain reaction that caused. There's no story here.

[Pangloss]

People who believe in God, i.e. not people like the atheist across from me, will defeat him.

 

That is an incorrect interpretation of what Al Sharpton said, not for the least of which because it required that you remove one of the key words he used. It ain't even debatable, IMO. Simply wrong.

 

Was Sharpton unreasonably harsh in his approach to the Imus incident? Yes, absolutely. Imus deserved a rebuke, maybe, but not to be made into a pariah. Lighten the **** up.

 

I agree with this view, but I also think ParanoiA is right in pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

 

Is there "media bias" revealed in the discrepancy in coverage between the two incidents? Hardly. The news story with Imus was not what he said, but that so many people were offended, and the chain reaction that caused. There's no story here.

 

On this you and I will clearly not agree, because IMO you've put the cart before the horse. There's no story here because the news media decided not to create one.

[Sisyphus]

On this you and I will clearly not agree, because IMO you've put the cart before the horse. There's no story here because the news media decided not to create one.

 

Can you support that? I really don't know how the "ho" incident unfolded, but it seems improbable that Imus merely saying that would get any significant coverage before people (like, say, Al Sharpton) started getting outraged.

[Pangloss]

I agree that it's more than just the media involved, but there's clearly a linkage between outrage in certain groups of people and the media, and it's all wrapped up with political correctness. I agree that Imus became a frenzy because certain groups were outraged at what he said, and they prompted the media to pull the trigger on the story. The groups that are outraged by Sharpton are considered less relevent by the media, therefore the frenzy is not created.

 

There are exceptions, but it typically takes a far more eggregious example on the politically correct side before a frenzy is created, and when one is, its ramifications are far less serious for the offender. A good example might be Jesse Jackson's "hymie town" incident. He certainly isn't paying for that one anymore, and it's every bit as serious as what Imus did.

 

Nor is Sharpton still paying for Tawana Brawley.

[ParanoiA]

Nor is Sharpton still paying for Tawana Brawley.

 

 

I've noticed that's a common theme for Sharpton. Jumping on the bandwagon of pre-judgement outside of the court of law, and then refusing to apologize when he's wrong.

 

There are several controversies surrounding him that I had no idea about. His bio reads like a racist and bigot more than an activist.

[Pangloss]

Well I think what he is is a demogogue. He's about rousing the rabble.

 

My two bits anyway.

[swansont]

I agree that it's more than just the media involved, but there's clearly a linkage between outrage in certain groups of people and the media, and it's all wrapped up with political correctness. I agree that Imus became a frenzy because certain groups were outraged at what he said, and they prompted the media to pull the trigger on the story. The groups that are outraged by Sharpton are considered less relevent by the media, therefore the frenzy is not created.

 

One might also consider that the supposed target of Sharpton was someone in the public/political view, while Imus's targets were not.

[Pangloss]

Nonsense. It's not okay to make biggoted comments about people who are in public life. And I don't think it would have been accepted if the target of Imus' comment had been Oprah Winfrey instead of the Rutgers women's basketball team.

[swansont]

That is an incorrect interpretation of what Al Sharpton said, not for the least of which because it required that you remove one of the key words he used. It ain't even debatable, IMO. Simply wrong.

 

I disagree and here's why:

 

You've apparently hinged part of this on Sharpton saying "really." Are you really going to set the bar that high, especially for an unscripted, unprepared comment made in a debate about believing in God? Doesn't that mean we should be holding everyone to the same standard? Like, say the president making a prepared comment — does that mean he really thinks that the Queen of England visited here in 1776? OMG, why isn't that a big news story (outside of The Daily Show)? Do you really believe that anyone can say such exact things, all the time? Or is it possible to fumble a little bit, and say things that don't come out quite perfectly?

 

I've had the experience, as I imagine many of us have, of having expressed something and had it interpreted in a way other than what I intended. My expectation is that a listener would ask for clarification if they felt there was some ambiguity. I don't have a lot of patience with people who think they know, better than I do, what I meant by something.

 

Sharpton attemted to clarify his comment, but a whole bunch of the idiot media have decided that they know better than he what he meant. I don't know what he meant, I can only go by the clarification. I prefer not to attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity or incompetence. And it's not like it's beyond reason that the media might sensationalize something, nor is it likely that had this not been pointed out, people would be sitting around saying, "Damn! Sharpton might have put his foot in his mouth and we missed our chance! An opportunity like this will never come again!"

 

And as far as there being "no story here" I sure got a lot of hits on Google news for "sharpton romney bigoted"

[-Demosthenes-]

[...']and I don't think mormons all over the country are outraged[...]

 

Meh. Them mormons are crazy.