National Review Fires John Derbyshire
DiscussiePolitical Conservatives
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
3Bretzky1
Had to be done.
In all of the articles I read regarding Derbyshire's essay, they always referred to him as National Review "insert title here". In such a situation, not taking action against Derbyshire would likely have been seen as a tacit acceptance of the views he expressed in his essay. That would have done a lot of damage to the National Review's image, especially given the circumstances around which Derbyshire wrote his essay.
In all of the articles I read regarding Derbyshire's essay, they always referred to him as National Review "insert title here". In such a situation, not taking action against Derbyshire would likely have been seen as a tacit acceptance of the views he expressed in his essay. That would have done a lot of damage to the National Review's image, especially given the circumstances around which Derbyshire wrote his essay.
4timspalding
A mixture of:
1. alarming statics that are nonetheless true and which, although appealing to racists, are not, in themselves, racist, and
2. wild assertions, either unsupported or supported by an anecdote, that are by even a generous measure racist as fuck!
1. alarming statics that are nonetheless true and which, although appealing to racists, are not, in themselves, racist, and
2. wild assertions, either unsupported or supported by an anecdote, that are by even a generous measure racist as fuck!
5Jesse_wiedinmyer
Is there an equivalency between his article and "the talk" that blacks would have with their kids (which, I assume, is what he's trying to establish)?
6timspalding
I don't think it's meta-humor.
7Bretzky1
#5:
Is there an equivalency between his article and "the talk" that blacks would have with their kids (which, I assume, is what he's trying to establish)?
To the extent that both paint another group in very broad brush strokes, they are equivalent, but that is a very limited equivalency.
One talk is prima facie racist--or, at least, race-baiting--in nature while the other is not. There are unspoken qualifications that can be stated after the fact regarding the latter talk, some of which can even take it out of the area of race altogether. There are simply no qualifications that can be made about what Derbyshire wrote. It is what it is.
Is there an equivalency between his article and "the talk" that blacks would have with their kids (which, I assume, is what he's trying to establish)?
To the extent that both paint another group in very broad brush strokes, they are equivalent, but that is a very limited equivalency.
One talk is prima facie racist--or, at least, race-baiting--in nature while the other is not. There are unspoken qualifications that can be stated after the fact regarding the latter talk, some of which can even take it out of the area of race altogether. There are simply no qualifications that can be made about what Derbyshire wrote. It is what it is.
