Is there an “Idiotic Headline of the Year” award?

Because I’d like to nominate this one.

A Discomfiting Question: Was The Chicago Torture Case Racism?

Where to even start?

A) Duh. Yes. If I kidnap you and torture you for hours while loudly going on about how much I hate people of your race, chances are my motives are racist. Next case.

B) (and this frankly infuriates me) Except that it’s not obvious at all, is it? Not to the people who have actually made themselves responsible for spreading the propaganda that guides American attitudes and assumptions, and who have said for decades that only white people are capable of racism. By this reasoning, when a black person harms a white person because the victim is white, that’s not racism. That’s racial justice.

C) Anyway who cares if it was racist? These people kidnapped a helpless person, then tortured that person while publishing the video of the act. We’re done here – the only controversy should be over whether they’re dead when we bury them. What part of “that’s completely barbaric and utterly, absolutely unacceptable” is difficult to understand? You want more of this sort of thing? Because making excuses for people who behave this way is how you get more of this sort of thing.

The rest of this article is as stupid as its headline, just longer.

In calling the kidnapping and assault racism, we’re staking claim to moral language — and uniquely powerful moral language — to which white people can’t easily lay claim, even in cases like the one in Chicago, which seems to qualify for the most vehement reproach available.

And it’s why, I suspect, the folks of color I talked to seemed so visibly uncomfortable. Calling what happened in Chicago racism seems to cede at least some of that moral authority to the many [white] people who we suspect are engaging in conversations about race and racism in bad faith…

I thought the folks at National Propaganda Radio were supposed to be smarter than the rest of us? That was how they got their jobs of telling us what to believe, right? By passing some “smarter than the proles” test? I think they should be required to re-take the test.

I’m from Detroit. The first part of my childhood was spent in a segregated whites-only neighborhood, and that was wrong. Making all judgments of moral authority a segregated blacks-only neighborhood is at least that wrong, and it wearies me. I seldom choose to discuss any matter that involves race, but this is just stupid. And immoral. And wrong.

h/t to Claire.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Is there an “Idiotic Headline of the Year” award?

  1. jabrwok says:

    “integrated whites-only”? That’s a phrase I’ve never seen before. My understanding of “integrated” has always been “racially mixed”.

  2. MamaLiberty says:

    A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good just because it’s accepted by a majority. Rick Warren

    Universally true, no matter how many people natter about “democracy.” Or the garbled mess of “racism.”

  3. Joel says:

    Oops, what an amazing brain fart. Fixed, except for my blushing face.

  4. jabrwok says:

    Ah, ok. I thought it might’ve been a regionalism or something.

  5. Joel says:

    No, it was just “rant faster, LB needs his walkie.”

  6. coloradohermit says:

    “the only controversy should be over whether they’re dead when we bury them”. Call it anything you like and give them life in prison where they’ll likely encounter skinhead gang members and wish they were dead long before the burying question even comes into play. Pollyanna wishful thinking?

  7. Kentucky says:

    “The first part of my childhood was spent in a segregated whites-only neighborhood, and that was wrong.”

    OK, I don’t understand. Seriously. What’s wrong with living where you wish, among those with whom you are comfortable and prefer to interact on a daily basis . . . those who share your social norms and family traditions?

    Not trying to justify overt, exclusionary racism in any form, by any demographic, just hoping to understand your position. I tend to classify “racism” as actions that overtly penalize or demean various races other than one’s own, not merely choosing to live where one wishes. The word has taken on certain connotations that can obscure motivation.

  8. Joel says:

    You can exclude people from your property for any reason or no reason, Kentucky, but you can’t exclude them from their own. If you own a condominium or a resort community or something, then excluding certain people from living there is – or should be, of course under current law it isn’t – your choice. I can disagree, but you hold the moral cards because it’s your frickin’ property. Case closed.

    But what I’m talking about is a neighborhood in an area incorporated within a city, not owned by any one person or entity, regulated under city law, in which no black family need try to purchase property because the sale will not be allowed. I was very young, I was only around for the public parts of the debate surrounding the end of the segregation policy and so I don’t remember for sure if this was some actual city regulation or just de facto action on the part of every damned realtor, but the segregation was either required or winked at by the city. So for all practical purposes it had the effect of law. That’s “overt, exclusionary racism,” by force, if I ever saw it, and it was wrong in every way.

  9. Kentucky says:

    Does that mean that we do not have the right to sell to someone of our choice, or, another way, MUST sell our own personal property to anyone who comes along . . . or cannot simply say “No, I do not wish to sell this to you”? I’d bet there are in fact laws that demand exactly this, but like many laws they are wrong themselves, infringing upon our rights to control our property as we see fit, not as deemed necessary by the liberal twits.

    If this conversation is going where you’d not like it to go, please delete my comments. I mean no harm, and do not wish to pee in your oatmeal here.

  10. Joel says:

    You can take any side on this topic and it’ll lead you into trouble. Let’s let it lay.

    Or lie. Whatever. ::)

  11. In fact there usd to be covenants built into titles prohibiting the selling of property to non-whites. From a strictly libertarian view, this should properly be seen as a violation of the OWNER’s rights, not potential purchasers.

    Joel, I don’t see any reason not to mark the headline for possible nomination, but we’re only nine days in! I suspect that with the media snowflakes hysterically wetting themselves on a daily basis, by mid-year we’ll wistfully look back at this as one of the more fair and balanced pieces of MSM art.


  12. Kentucky says:

    OK . . . we can lay it aside and let it lie there.


To the stake with the heretic!