Illiberal Liberals: The Firing of Juan WIlliams

boygabriel · November 2010

Hi Eggcream! Is there ever anything you're not wrong about? Here's the main thrust of what was offensive about Wiliams. It was NOT his admission of initial fear:

What's bigoted about Williams was his overall fear of Muslims period, and his hinting at something many people on Fox News and elsewhere believe, namely that all terrorists are Muslims, and that America is at war with Islam.

-me, in an earlier post you chose to ignore b/c it doesn't fit your narrative

eggcream · November 2010

Boygabriel wrote: Hi Eggcream! Is there ever anything you're not wrong about? Here's the main thrust of what was offensive about Wiliams. It was NOT his admission of initial fear:

What's bigoted about Williams was his overall fear of Muslims period, and his hinting at something many people on Fox News and elsewhere believe, namely that all terrorists are Muslims, and that America is at war with Islam.

-me, in an earlier post you chose to ignore b/c it doesn't fit your narrative

I ignore the majority of your posts since they are inaccurate and laughable. Your posts summed up: Blahblah Republicans are racist blah blah Fox er Faux News sucks.

boygabriel · November 2010

eggcream wrote: I ignore the majority of your posts since they are inaccurate and laughable. Your posts summed up: Blahblah Republicans are racist blah blah Fox er Faux News sucks.

You don't let anything penetrate your narrow Beck-led view of the universe.

There are independents and Republicans who've had good debates here over the years.

You're too lazy to be one of them.

mha · November 2010

Hey -- not so Eggcream.

Boygabriel was keen enough to splice JW's comments into the two prongs. He's the one that made it clear that it wasn't the prejudicial comments that was the offensive act warranting JW's firing, but rather his commentary equating Islam with being un-American. I think that's a valid argument, don't you? Suppose JW had mentioned instead Catholics, or Protestants, or Buddhists? What is dangerous about JW's argument is that it's not rendering a critique of Islam but rather saying being a Muslim means being a terrorist. That's some scary shit to say.

I think that the manner in which he was canned mutes the argument. I think that more harm is done by NPR ridding him of his post, and visibility. It would have been better if from his position his stance could have been debated.

I believe someone made the point that the main thrust of JW's argument got lost in the sauce, that he was saying that he did not favor that Muslims be treated as suspect; well, that point seems to be ancillary now.

You say above that you "...ignore the majority of [Boygabriel's} posts since they are inaccurate and laughable. " I may disagree with Boygabriel on issues -- shit, I DO disagree with him on at least two -- but his commentary about JW is right on point. I for one, don't think his posts are inaccurate or laughable.

Eggcream,I felt moved to respond because your post sums up what I endure all the time: People ignore what you say -- yet feel confident in accurately assessing what is said. That's the very definition of prejudice if you ask me. But I can appreciate the catalyst of why the ignoring occurs, and that's because one grows tired of reading the plethora of commentary from a particular party, so as you wrote, what people like me and Eggcream write (more me than he I am sure) come off as is a load of '..blah blah..' blather. I get it.
People forget what you say, and instead just recall the impression that they have of you: 'Oh, that's MHA, he's the local racist, liar, etc.' Prejudice becomes the norm, and eyes glaze over. Boygabriel, I'm on your side here...

boygabriel · November 2010

=D> =D> =D>

robnyc · November 2010

He got fired because he'd been doing shit like this for a while. NPR just should have come out and said that this was just the last straw in a long list of problems they had with him. They went so far as to remove his NPR affiliation when he appeared on Fox News. And Fox News loved that they had this stooge on their show to make the false claim that they were balanced because they still think NPR is liberal. Their news reporting is actually the only fair and balanced news out there. Just because Republicans hate them doesn't mean they're right.

His free speech wasn't hurt in the least. Williams can go out and say all the islamophobic shit he wants. He's just not going to be getting a pay check by NPR for it. And really, who cares, Fox News will pay him to say racist islamophobic shit now anyway. They're just all pissed because they lost that NPR cover they used to be able to claim.

witch-king · November 2010

I can't see the "speech" issue here. He was terminated for violating NPR's code of ethics (available via deft googling). Mr Williams is free to express his irrational fear of airplane passengers wearing muslim garb, at Fox News and on any street corner soapbox he's able to commandeer.

The question of whether NPR should have terminated him is another matter. If he believes his labor rights were violated, he'll sue. He hasn't yet, preferring to demagogue the issue and spinning his firing into a "liberals are PC police" cliche-ridden and emotional rant. When/if he does sue NPR, I'll take is lamentations more seriously. If I were running NPR, I would have kept Mr Williams around and hired a psychologist to diagnose Mr Williams fear factor on air.

mha · November 2010

The lack of discourse about the issue feeds the ignorant into believing that the country is ceding ground to Islam. Recall when Colin Powell went on the air and said he was voting for Obama? One of the cogent things he said was, 'What if Obama is a Muslim? Why does being a Muslim somehow imply that one's loyalities are not for America?' I got a wonderful chill when Powell said this, and I knew that at that point, he was the smartest man in the G.O.P.

Are there any Republican Muslims out there?

booklaw · November 2010

If I were a Muslim, I sure wouldn't want to be a Republican these days (even if I were a corporate fat cat). The Republicans have aligned themselves with the Tea Party and the Christian Right. They are hardly an inclusionist party these days.

mha · November 2010

What of the theory that change happens from within? Suppose, in the same fashion that civil rights demonstrators integrated Woolworth, suppose members of the ideological left 'integrated' the Tea Party, as well as the Republican party? The problem with any ideology is that as it becomes separate from difference, it distills itself (I have a sense these words will one day haunt me). What seems ludicrous to many about the stance that the Tea Party or the Republican Party -- or the Democratic Party for that matter -- is that there are few voices within these distinct tents to challenge what ultimately are all parochial views. Imagine, if you will, if some middle class Muslims join the Republican Party... But for the jingoism, Muslims are much like Republicans: Socially conservative, probably viscerally pro-life, against affirmative action, entrepreneurial, probably against high taxation, etc.

whynot_31 · November 2010

your suggestion brings to mind my leftist friends who were born Catholic.

Often female, they would try to reform the american catholic church on the basis that it should be accepting of catholics who believed:

Females should play a role in the leadership of the church

Females should have access to birth control and abortion

Homosexuality should not be condemned

Divorce should be allowable

yada, yada.

....yes, there are times when change from within works, but you gotta pick your battles. ...and be smart about where you spend your energies.

If Juan Williams decided to "change NPR" he was clearly over his head, and not a real smart guy.

Fear not, he seems to be fitting in well at FOX. They affirm his world view everyday. There is someplace for everyone. ....but isn't always where they presently "are".

Illiberal Liberals: The Firing of Juan WIlliams

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories