It's a lesbian/liberal/black thing

From Eugene Kane...
Last weekend, an AP/Yahoo News poll found many whites have a negative
image of African-Americans in terms of violent behavior, even if they don't have
much day-to-day interaction with black people. The poll found that at least 40%
of all whites had at least one partly negative impression of black

The results suggested that a barrage of crime news from the black
community can influence opinions about African-Americans more than any other
source. The identity of minors in criminal cases is usually withheld, but these
two boys have been "outed" in the media because they are charged with adult
crimes and face adult penalties if convicted.

And when a white, female, liberal comedienne uses black men gang-raping a female vice-presidential candidate as humor and even the likes of Kane don't come out to condemn it, well, y'know, that probably doesn't help too much either.

Just another thing I just wouldn't understand, I guess.


Crawford's Take said...

Lesbian liberal black things are all good too...

I love how conservatives are suddenly so sensitive to the -isms...

If this presidential year did nothing else, it opened a few eyes to how much it sucks to be a person who falls into an -ism category through no fault of their own...

And on our side, how easy it is to fall into calling women witches...

especially when you find out the ask Jesus to protect them from witchcraft LOL!

Hey Dave! You took me off your Stress Inducers list??? Does that mean my blog now sucks or that I no longer induce stress in you (which means my blog sucks)?

Anonymous said...

And I remain a member of the only group that any one can make fun of, yet can't poke fun at any one--a white Christian male. Because, for some reason, people think that I wield all the power.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

I think it's important to note the the comedian you're talking about isn't funny or popular or anything like that. So that probably has something to do with why this isn't making news, except from people looking for an itch to scratch.

David Casper said...

Rae, I'm not sure why your link no longer appears (although I really don't need to link to you because I can just shout out my kitchen window if I need you). I was adding some stuff a while back and having trouble with it, so that might be the case. I'll get on top of that.

Now as for the topic at hand, I don't think the (supposedly) recent discovery of isms has much to do with this, although I'd assert that many conservatives have always been aware of them, but aren't necessarily likely to immediately point to them as the main or sole cause of societal ills. But my issue here is with Kane, and how he's always griping about the portrayal of blacks in the media and how it adversely impacts them. So when someone comes along and implies that black men have a propensity to gang-rape white women as a way of making a funny, and then Kane once again writes about media's tendency to portray black as violent but makes no mention of this, I can't help but think he's okay with that portrayal because it's used in a way to criticize someone he obviously doesn't like. Usually, Kane defends a double-standard like this as "white folks just wouldn't understand."

Which brings me to JIJAWM comment. First off, I'm guessing you aren't asserting that one's ability to be funny is directly correlated with how offended anyone else should be by something one says. But were that the case, then nobody should really have been offended by either Michael Richards (or, at least, his standup routine) or Don Imus. If that were true, Kane would have had to find something else to write about for several months. Second, what Bernhard said did make the news, and Kane has cited far more obsure things in the past, so I can't see how this one possibly got past him.

Unless, of course, he just conveniently chose to let it.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

No it didn't. Well, not really. It made Drudge Report. I thought your point is that only some people (Drudge, Real Debate Fred, World Nut Daily, Faux News Network etc.) commented on it while others (real news media outlets, Eugene Kain) didn't.* My point is that the reason may have been that Sandra Bernhardt is not famous or funny or tallented or interesting. Michael Richards is at least some of those things. Do Imus is at least one of those things. That's why when they do something notable, it's notable. If Sandra Bernhardt or me did the same thing, it wouldn't matter at all.

*Or at least they didn't cover it much. I'm sure you could find it mentioned on CNN or CBS or something if you looked.