ext_370466 (
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2011-07-07 02:48 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
Even more Wankery that we find acceptable...
While I generally disagree with his politics I think Mr. Savage raises an excellent point.
Now consider this...
Bill Maher and NYT's David Carr the "Middle Places" and "Low-Sloping Foreheads".
I apologise for linking as I seem to be having trouble embedding the video.
Now I would assume that both men in the second video consider themselves to be reasonably intelligent and enlightened men. If accused of being racist or bigoted I would imagine that they would be properly offended.
Which is why I'm going to ask an uncomfortable question, why is it ok to disparage one socio-political/ethnic class as stupid, dangerous, useless, ect... but not another. Would his comments have been more or less offensive had he been talking about "Fags" "Twats" "Spics" "Wops" "Chinks" or *Gasp* "N*ggers"?
Discuss.
no subject
no subject
No, actually, I agree with: "fairness" is entirely subjective and thus impossible to quantify i but not it has no place in a rational discussion. We're talking humans here, we don't work like computers, if you try to keep things too rational you fail to encompass the full scope of human existence; which if you process through your engineer brain, you're trying to come up with answers with only half the information. Perhaps quantum physics analogies can help; you know all that "maybe logic" shit that's going on? I'm not saying that it's possible to actually answer, but I think the process of attempting to come to conclusions in an irrational system is more productive than produce rational conclusions from an incomplete system.
no subject
no subject
no subject