Remember those Obama “Socialism” posters that were popping up around Los Angeles? You know, the ones where his face is painted like the Joker from Batman?
The story got a lot of traction in the blogosphere because a particularly sensitive individual over at LA Weekly decided that photoshopping a picture of Obama is just plain racist. Lacking any insightful commentary,the blogger whipped out his trusty old race card: “The only thing missing is a noose.” What’s missing from the picture is not a noose; it’s a President who cares about the principles of free market economics. Bada-bam.
Turns out the photoshopper is a 20 year old kid who, while not enthralled with Obama, certainly doesn’t seem like the racist type. His family is Palestinian, although he was born in the U.S. He didn’t vote in the last election, but if he had, he would have pulled the lever for Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis. Freakin’. Kucinich. He’s clearly a Klan member, because Klan members love Kucinich. And Middle Easterners.
Of course, we never needed the photoshopper’s identity to know the LA Weekly ninny is wrong. He decided that one go wasn’t enough and published a second, longer entry that read in part: “I do believe the poster appeals to people who see in it a validation of their own racial prejudices, even if they can’t acknowledge them. “
Let’s work through this logical train wreck: If I accuse someone of being racist, and they say they aren’t racist, that means they actually are racist but need me to help them realize it. Let’s apply this to an analogous situation: I call Obama a socialist, he says he’s not a socialist, which means, of course, that he’s actually a socialist.
You can just hear Billy Mays’ voice in your head: “Use this new logic exclusive from the LA Weekly, it’s foolproof, it works for any situation, and best of all, anyone who uses it can never be wrong!” The intellectual pedigree of the LA Weekly reminds me of a hamster. But Mr. LA Weekly blogger man ain’t finished yet.
It simply wouldn’t be the standard liberal tripe without a touch of that patented arrogance thrown on top. He opines, “That my short post hit such a deep, raw nerve clearly shows that race was very much part of the illustration’s attraction.” Again, let’s follow the logic: If I write something utterly retarded, and people tell me I’m retarded, then I’m right.
There’s a valuable lesson we can take away from this situation, though: Aspiring writers, if you never want to have to substantiate anything you write, apply to the LA Weekly.
A.J. Fluehr is a blogger at The D.C. Writeup.
Loading ...
August 19th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Again, let’s follow the logic: If I write something utterly retarded, and people tell me I’m retarded, then I’m right.
Oh please, what exactly does it mean to write something utterly retarded? Do you mean if you write something slow or delayed? Hardly. If you mean stupid, just say stupid. When you use retarded as a slur you’re dehumanizing people with special needs and lead people to believe you’re hanging out with too many 7th graders.
If you want to call a spade a spade, so be it, but retarded doesn’t belong here.
[Reply to this Comment]
August 20th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Mike,
There are multiple definitions of “retard.”
Random House Dictionary
4. Slang: Disparaging.
a. a mentally retarded person.
b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
It’s pretty lame to criticize me based on the definition of the word you acknowledge. Or are you also going to criticize me for using the word “lame” because it can also refer to a crippled person? This debate is a pointless exercise in political correctness. Whether you want to call what the LA Weekly blogger wrote stupid, retarded, inept, idiotic, etc my point remains.
[Reply to this Comment]