Since I Don’t Really Have A Headline For My Post On John Derbyshire…
Posted by KingShamus on April 10, 2012
…I’ll just kinda get right into it.
His TakiMag piece, where he details the advice he has given his children about how to deal with black people, is pretty much indefensible. While some of it is backed up by research, which you could argue with on an intellectual level, much of the rest of the post feels like it was based around personal anecdotes and vague urban legend type stuff. If Derbyshire has had bad experiences with black people–which seems possible from the stuff in the article–that could explain some of the article’s overall tone of defensive angst. However, the fact that he possibly extrapolated some negative memories and turned them into a column about all the ways a person should interact with Americans of African descent is a bridge too far.
I mean, come the fuck on homeboy. What am I supposed to do with this?
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
This is racism, pure and simple. He’s advocating the use of one set of criteria for one group of people and another set of standards for another. If that’s not racism, what the hell is it?
When confronted with anything…good, bad, whatever…it helps to call things what they actually are, not what we wish they were or what they could be if we squint our eyes, do an interpretive dance and put it through an ideological slap-chop session to make it palatable.
So the Derb is a bigot.
He’s also a massive doucherocket sandwich.
By the way–None of these things are illegal.
The various bishops and cardinals who run the Church of Holy Political Correctness wish that being a racist was against the law. They’re diligently working on legal penalties on meanie-head speech and poopie-face actions. But we live in a country that still has a reasonably sturdy First Amendment.
That means that Derbyshire is perfectly free to think the things he thinks and write the things he writes.
It also means that National Review honcho Rich Lowry is free to shit-can Derbyshire at NR.
But did Rich Lowry do anyone any favors here? Chris Wysocki doesn’t think so.
John Derbyshire is out at National Review, but Bill Maher and Chris Rock are still on TV?
I guess conservatives have better consciences. Or more likely they still respond to shame. Pity that liberals embrace neither.
In a more enlightened age Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Rich Lowry is no Voltaire. He’s no Bill Buckley either. He kicked John Derbyshire to the curb without so much as a fare-thee-well.
Meanwhile Bill Maher, who says absolutely vile things about conservative women pretty much every week, remains a headliner at HBO. It’s not sexism to call Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann despicable names, after all they deserve it, because they oppose abortion.
Wysocki is right to be frustrated at the double-standard here. Liberals constantly fudge their Huggies about conservative ‘hate speech’, yet somehow never get around to policing their side’s vicious rhetoric. Meanwhile, the Right has to carefully tip-toe around the dainty standards the progressives have set up for conservative expression. At the same time, traditionalists also get to watch liberals constantly break their own civility by-laws and receive no punishment for their transgressions.
Make no mistake about it: Lowry has bought himself or his magazine no reprieve from the Left’s hunger for censorship. Firing Derbyshire won’t get National Review any strange new respect. They’ll just move on to the next target.
Here’s how you know the progressive movement simply can’t handle ideas that go beyond their narrow worldview: Has anybody in the liberal smart-o-sphere actually taken the time to debunk the research in Derb’s article? If it’s so obviously wrong, why not shoot it down? Don’t just sit there and stamp your feet and have a temper-tantrum over the post, intellectually engage the data and disprove it.
Of course that won’t happen.
That’d be too much like doing work.
It’s easier to just incoherently holler at the bad noises coming from the ugly mean-spirited reich-wing nutbar man.
Every so often, a leftist jag-off will talk about the need for an open honest discussion about race in America. Liberals can bloviate for an eternity over the absolute necessity for Americans to wring their hands about our troubles with ethnicity. After hearing this, many folks will naively and stupidly take the Left seriously and start talking about the subject. Then, when they blunder in and get a little too honest about their feelings and attitudes, libs will inevitably scream ‘raaaaacism!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!1!!1eleventy!!!!!” when confronted with honesty.
Its such a dicknosed bait-and-switch move. It’s not meant to foster dialogue. It’s just meant to get Left’s political enemies to shut the fuck up.
So yes, let us condemn John Derbyshire. He’s a racist. He’s a bigot. He wrote something I–and a lot of other folks on the Left and Right–disagree with.
But at least Derbyshire can take solace in the fact that he was truthful about his feelings on race.
That’s something very few people on either the liberal or conservative side can say.
This entry was posted on April 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm and is filed under Domestic Happenings, Media Silliness. Tagged: A National Conversation About Race, Black people, Charlie Brown Keeps Playing Football With Lucy And keeps Expecting A Different Result, John Derbyshire, Jonah Goldberg, National Review, Rich Lowry, Taki Magazine, White People. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.