In-genuine outrage comes in three forms as I've observed and categorized. There's the first, tactical in-genuine outrage, the kind someone uses to sacrifice the well being of another human being in order to advance their own political agenda. There is the outrage that's in-genuine in order to hide one's own deficiencies, such as a racist who gets outraged over on outrageous statement primarily to put themselves in a position of being immaculate-- Limbaugh does this a lot. Finally there is the in-genuine outrage that people take up because everyone else is pissed off. This, to me, is simultaneously the most ironic, hypocritical, and understandable form of outrage.
My second issue is with Christians, on the left, who lie, manipulate, distort, or have no understanding of their own religion. I have enough issues with Atheists who hate religion simply because it's religion, as I once did, but this. Now, I understand when someone like Bush distorts his own religion, probably unconsciously or through example, in order to justify himself and his actions. I just accept that as another one of those disturbing Right Wing Truthiness* based arguments they tend to make. When a left winger does it, especially with their own religion, well, that just annoys the hell outta me. More detail below.
I'll address the first point.
I)
The outrage is in-genuine and unjustified. The comments were insensitive, rather disturbing, but in terms of scale of sin, hardly worth mentioning. The sheer amount of racism and sexism that exists in comedy dwarfs this incident by leaps and bounds. It is impossible, impossible to turn on Comedy Central, as an example, without seeing incidents of these. Many of these incidents, the viewers, myself, probably the people reading this, have laughed at. If you open a magazine, there is sexist or racist imagery-- primarily sexist, now. If you walk down the street (or drive the high way) you will see sexist imagery. It is... everywhere.
And Racist? Racism is such a strange double standard... I am Jewish. If Imus had spoken of "Hook-nosed lawyers," I'd have been sorta shocked and miffed and angered. I might even call him antisemitic. If placed in the context of the comments he made of the Rutgers women, I'd have had to pause, and consider, did he really mean that? Or was it a play on popular culture? If he said it was a joke, would I still be hurt? Yeah. Would I demand that his life be altered dramatically for that? No. I'm not an asshole. Let me continue...
I love Chris Rock.
Chris Rock has racist humor against other African Americans. ... Chris Rock also has racist humor against White people -- bashfully I admit, I haven't seen his comedy in a very long time, but I am almost entirely sure that this is the case, as I remember discussing it in depth with my parents when I was smaller. Why was this fair, I wondered? It's taken me a long time to figure that out.
It's fine for Chris Rock to make fun of white people. I really don't care. Sometimes his observations are accurate of trends in some of the white subcultures of America, and often they're very telling. Similarly someone close to me was deeply disturbed by my mother calling Miracle Whip "Goy" (or did she say Goyum?) My mother is Jewish, this other person is not. This seemed perfectly acceptable to me, but it hurt this special person... Why? Why was there that difference? Why did I think their being offended by it so odd?
I came to the conclusion it's about power dynamics. There's a joke where you speak of someone in a 'racist' way, a traditionally racist way. Just, in general. Again, hook-nosed Jews. When a non-jew calls a jew a Bloodsucker, they're doing it to empower themselves over that Jew. They are demeaning the Jew not for the purpose of humor, but they're doing it about the person... Or rather, they're intending to hurt, either directly, or indirectly. Even if the Jew doesn't hear it, when the Non-jew says that to their Non-Jew friend, it's not about the joke, it's about the jew... It's about excluding that person. It's not about recognizing how they are excluded.
When my mother made a joke about the Goy miracle whip, it wasn't about excluding my special person, it was about the difference between Jew and Gentile, it was about recognizing that there are cultural differences.
Imus, I think, was somewhere in the middle of two of those. In the joke, this offhand, idiotic, hurtful comment, he was making them less than him. On the other hand, it wasn't about them. Not really. I don't even think it was about African Americans-- or women. I think it was about.. difference. And not people. And then he apologized. It wasn't a small, tiny apology that you give as an offhand excuse to shield yourself from being criticized. I can't see into his heart, and neither can those who criticize him, but he sounded sincere. I am not Christian, but I understand forgiveness. Those who want to change themselves, or at least claim to, to make up for what they've done...
So, here, is the center of it all. Why is it in-genuine? Given what I just explained, it seems entirely fair to be outraged at this. Why is it in-genuine? Al Sharpton says that he speaks out frequently against the racism, self-demeaning within his own micro-culture. Many do. I agree that they probably do (but I won't ever forget the day Bill Cosby came out against it, and many African Americans criticized him for it, but no reason to go into that). It's in-genuine because I don't hear Al Sharpton on MSNBC talking about the need to completely de-construct the pop/gangster-rap industry. I don't hear anyone saying that. It's because, ironically, Imus is white, that Al Sharpton is coming out so vociferously. And it's because Imus is so high-profile. Oh, sure, he can attack Ann Coulter, but what does that get him? Everyone expects it from her! So it's okay, right?
Yeah. Right.
It's in-genuine because it's all about the politics, and about race. It's not about Imus, it's not about caring about Imus as a person, and it is, factually, just a repetition of what led up to all this in-genuine outrage. Treating a human being not as a human being-- not relating to them on the I-Thou level (refer to Martin Buber, feel free to Wiki it, refer to I and Thou), but on the I-it. Al Sharpton is no Martin Luther King Jr.. I did not know the man, nor do I know Sharpton, but I can judge actions. When King acted without violence, and attempted to bring the races together, he wasn't trying to make them come together through revolution or force. When there was a non-violent protest, when the police were shown hurting African Americans without justice, it forced people to RELATE to the protesters. Not relate as in sympathize, but deeply, spiritually (metaphor), become attuned to them, to feel, to build a Relationship (Buber style) of I-Thou with those protesters. What Sharpton is doing is further dividing the races, making this an issue not about the human condition, but right and wrong. He is using the tactic of fear, hatred, anger, division, in order to get what he wants... And in this world view, he is Right, and Imus is Wrong. There's no room in his world view that the truth is a mix of both... Which I feel is the true meaning of being a liberal.
And so what is the end game? Imus shouldn't be removed, or fired, or even attacked, when he wants to seek a way to make it better. It only hurts race relations, it doesn't help. We should stop targeting people who are the exact opposite of the real dangers. We need to target the Limbaughs, the Gangster Rappers (who do far more damage than Imus ever could), the publishers of that music, MTV for encouraging these images, we need to hurt the people who legitimize this, and those who would use it as a weapon, a tool for the gain of their own political movement or personal gain. A tool of division, or profit.
That brings me to the second point. It's much shorter, promise!
II)
Hypocritical Christians. Al Sharpton, I heard (so if I am wrong on this particular point, forgive me for using Sharpton as an example, but it exists as a common thread throughout christianity), said more or less the following. When asked would [he] forgive Imus, Sharpton replied, Christ Forgives, man does not have to.
Shame on you, Reverend. I say that, because I am no Christian but I have studied the bible to a great extent, and more than that, have often found my own way of life resembling that of the Red-Letter-- as most any socialist would.
"If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it."
ex 23:5
"If I have rejoiced at my enemy's misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him, I have not allowed my mouth to sin by invoking a curse against his life."
Job 31:29-30
"Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him."
Prov 24:17-18
I admit, these are all from the Old Testament, however, one who knows the bible as much as the Reverend obviously must would know that God becomes more forgiving, not less, in the New testament.
And just now on MSNBC I heard Sharpton say to Gregory that there is a difference between Redemption and Amnesty.
Oh my, dear, dear Reverend.
Dear Reverend.
Why are you not lifting Imus's donkey? You are a teacher and student of Christ? Truly?
Tell me my dear Reverend.. How do you feel about people like me? I don't mean, people who point out your hypocrisy, or illustrate the danger of your divisive, futile political techniques... I mean the kind of person who would dare to frame this in the context of a Jewish theologian and philosopher (Buber). You know. Jews.
I know about the blood on your hands, for their deaths. I know that many in the political circuit have mentioned your antisemitic side comments about people who aren't high-profile enough to merit being mentioned in the mass media. I know that studies have shown antisemitism is, comparatively, rampant through the Black Community.
I have never... Ever... Heard you apologize for that.
Only denials. Take responsibility for the violence you inspired, at the very least, because regardless of the inability for people to prove your comments (beyond the credible people saying they heard you say it)... People still died from violence you inspired. And what did you do? You essentially said, children will be children...
This is not the work of Christ. I can't stand for divisive race politics like this, I don't want that. I want to communicate, and be a human being, with you, Al Sharpton, and all your supporters, and every other human being in the world. I don't want this to be about race, or sex, or gender, or any of that. I want it to be about doing the right thing. Admitting when you've done wrong, and trying to learn from it, instead of hiding that...
I want Christians to stop hiding from their own religion, and atheists like myself to stop acting like Christianity, outside the context of Paul, is some type of horrific ethical set, when it is so often the set that we live by.
I want... Change. No more of this Kabuki dance. It has to stop somewhere...
I support Barack Obama for President, because I believe he can end that Kabuki dance, and help make people, people...
Thanks for reading... orrr
tl;dr ;)
Shalom,
K
Note:
- Truthiness is a word wholly and completely created, owned, and made love to by Stephen Colbert, all rights-- and I mean all rights reserved.
edit 1:
I have replaced "In-genuine" with "insincere." Any time you see insincere it was once in-genuine. Explanation in a post by me in the comments.
I've also included a reference explaining Sharpton's antisemitism, with some explanation.
http://dir.salon.com/...
The RNC uses this as propaganda. My problem isn't so much that this happened, nor do I blame Sharpton for it (as I guess I insinuated). Moreover, he doesn't take responsibility for the in direct actions his hate-speech and inciting against Jewish shop owners caused. Not very cool, at all. I feel that Sharpton's inability to face his indirect responsibility in this is a degree of hypocrisy.
Apologies to those who think I'm racist! That's sorta surprising. But okay.
Oh, and. Remember, there is a very large difference between Common Sense, and Logic. Logic means A->B. It doesn't mean "Obvious" as many understand it to be. I tend to have trouble communicating my thoughts in a way people understand, I'm, uh, unconventional, and my thought process is very dense (in terms of the amount contained in statements). So if you have that trouble, also, uh, nothing I can do about that. So, sorry.
Edit 2
I'm new to this, so give me time to adapt! Heh.
My changes:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Entered at the request of a polster.
Also, the Poll really does have a point, take it, then read my explanation in the comments (should be at the top).
