Who Weaponized Racism? Redux

It's worth repeating: the far left did.

In its most virulent forms, weaponized racism relies on rhetorical self-indulgences by the far left wherein they entitle themselves to various sophistic means by which they never need provide any actual evidence.



Instead of offering actual evidence of racism, Dyson instead proposes that he can identify "code words" -- coded racism.

Moreover, when Breitbart points out that Limbaugh was a staunch defender of Justice Clarence Thomas, Maher insists that Thomas doesn't represtent "95%" of black people. Dyson objects to Breitbart envoking the "black studies crowd" by referring to it as coded racism.

Dyson seems rather desperate to cut off Breitbart's point at the knees, and with reason: in order to make his argument, Dyson relies on a collectivized notion of race, with a political agenda attached to it.

Dyson further suggests that white supremacy can inhabit black skin -- further inferring that Thomas is such a case.

In other words, because Thomas doesn't share the political agenda championed by the far left -- including, frankly, many X-studies professors of various sorts (black studies, women's studies, etc) -- it's inferred that he, as a black man, is a white supremacist.

Of course, what Dyson is all but outwardly accusing Thomas of is perhaps the most damaging breed of racism -- racism against one's own race. And, just as with his "coded racism", Dyson need not offer any actual evidence outside of Thomas' disagreement with a specific political agenda.

Which, conveniently, will always be their political agenda.

In fact, Dyson's allegations of "coded racism" actually allows him to take any statement he believes he can twist into inferring a racist statement and use it as de facto evidence of racism.

For example, Dyson has entitled himself to the privilege to twist any criticism of President Barack Obama -- an individual black man -- into a broader racist meme in which one criticizes Obama not because there's anything wrong with his policies, but rather because they can't stand to see a black man in charge.

Where Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- clearly "running things" as a black male -- falls into this is anyone's guess.

Then, quite comically, as Breitbart gets set to rebut, it's Michael Eric Dyson -- a guest on the show, not a producer, or even its host -- who says "we're out of time".

Naturally, there's a few things that Dyson and Maher wouldn't want Breitbart to bring up -- that Limbaugh's McNabb comments were used out-of-context on numerous occasions, that former black NFL player Eugene “Mercury” Morris would defend Limbaugh on another such occasion, and that Limbaugh's infamous "slavery" comments were wholly fabricated.

There's a reasonw why Dyson wouldn't want such facts to see the light of day: as a black man with a specific far-left-wing political agenda, Dyson has learned as well as anyone that racism is an extremely convenient political accusation. As such, it's individuals like Dyson who have participated in the weaponization of racism -- all in the name of advancing said specific agenda.

The cynicism people like Dyson are breeding on the topic of racism is dangerous and socially irresponsible.

It's to the great credit of western society that we have come to understand the civic threat posed by racism, even if we have yet to fully conquer it. It's to the great discredit of people like Bill Maher, Michael Eric Dyson and Spencer Ackerman that they have decided to risk undermining the western public's understanding of racism by sewing such cynicism.

If they legitimately cared about the topic of racism at all, they would be ashamed of themselves. Of course, that brings one back to a very, very big "if" -- and all the available evidence demonstrates that they really don't care about it at all: they only care about racism so far as they can ideoligically benefit from it.

The Most Epic Twitter Fail EVER

'Nuff said.

Let's Discuss "Conclusive Evidence", Shall We?

This author actually intends to let Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II's decision to flee debate go with a minimum of further commentary.

But if there's one thing this author is not prepared to do, it's allow Audrey to reinvent old arguments she lost to pretend that she won.

First, one should peruse this particular thread wherein Audrey can pick out nothing in this video that demonstrates that a Tea Party protester intentionally spit on congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

It allegedly takes place at 0:13 of the video.

-Here's a video still from the video in question:

The accused can clearly be seen, hands cupped over his mouth, shouting vociferously at Cleaver as he passes by. From Cleaver's reaction it's clear that something has happened -- as Andy Ostray points out -- from Cleaver's word, he has been spit upon, or as Cleaver subsequently phrased it, the protester in question allowed his saliva to hit Cleaver's face.

The saliva on Cleaver's face should not be in question. Andrew Breitbart offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce not video evidence of this spit, as Crooks and Liars and the Huffington Post have claimed, but for hard video evidence that the protesters hurled racial epithets at the congressmen:

"I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point."

Not only have they failed to produce hard video evidence of this -- the actual subject of the offer -- but they've also failed to produce conclusive evidence that a tea party protester intentionally spit on Cleaver.

Yet Audrey continues to pretend that the evidence conclusively shows intent -- despite that she can't point to a single instant from that video that would support this claim.

So perhaps Audrey simply doesn't know what conclusive evidence is. So, one supposes, she'll simply have to be shown some.

Consider a more recent episode in which supporters of Senator Harry Reid (he of the "negro dialect" remark) were videotaped throwing eggs at a bus carrying protesters to a Tea Party protest against Reid. Another counter-protester also threatened Breitbart.

The video clearly shows eggs striking the bus, coming from the direction of the pro-Reid counter-protesters.

While that's far from 100% conclusive, they did manage to produce a photo of one of the egg-throwers midway through his throwing motion:

(It's pretty clear the counter-protester in question throws like a girl.)

So, let's compare:

We have a video of a tea party protester shouting at Congressman Emanuel Cleaver through cupped hands -- shouting before, during, and after the actual spittle even by Cleaver's own account.

On the other hand, we have video of pro-Harry Reid counter-protesters throwing eggs at a bus carring Tea Party protesters, and a photograph of one of them with an egg in the palm of his hand.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these examples is clearly conclusive, and the other is not.

It would be amusing to hear Audrey insist that the counter-protesters in question were "accidentally" throwing the eggs. Unlike Audrey's Ostroy-esque insistence that the notion that Cleaver was sprayed with saliva mid-bellow is ridiculous (an argument that relies on viewing the events in question through a conspiratorial mental lens), that actually would be ridiculous.

It's become clear that it's Audrey, not Andrew Breitbart, who is constructing an alternate reality. It's clear that Audrey subscribes to a "truthi-alty" -- an intellectually selfish conception of the world in which she's not only entitled to her own opinion, but entitled to her own reality.

No one should expect Audrey to acknowledge any of this. After all, she made the decision to run away from debate for a reason.