How obvious, then, to at least acknowledge race in a definition of racism. An oversight, I'm sure. That said, I see by your remarks that the great convenience to being your own authority is that it makes your points self-correcting.

[Your argument becomes weaker the farther out you climb.]

And your petty torment had all the efficacy of a CIA operation--it hit everything in the room except its intended target.

Cheers,

The statement that establishes this premise is; “Racist – ADJECTIVE; based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race”

It would hardly do to use the word “racist” without regard to race, as it is the root of the word.

OK if you want to get really picky about it, I should have said “a racist statement is one that groups “groups of people” or a “race of people” under a negative judgement. Does that satisfy you?

Really Mitch, you are going quite far out on a limb to disprove my assertion that Barry made a racist remark. Your argument becomes weaker the farther out you climb.

Frankly, I was surprised you didn't wind up and let hurl something like this:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
~ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Descrimination

Instead, you came at the discussion with that ill-considered generality...

Cheers,

By the way, I notice no one has called me on the fact that I also called Barry’s remark “arrogant.” By Michael’s and your standards this means I’m calling Barry arrogant. So either “arrogant” is not a hot button word like “racist,” or the consensus is that Barry is arrogant.

Quite like the mosquito in the nudist colony, I'm overwhelmed by the question, "Where do I begin?"

But let me start here: [A racist remark is one that groups people under a negative judgement.] You could not cast a broader net, could you? By this logic, anyone who objects to smoking in restaurants is a racist.

Cheers,

The standard being that someone who accuses someone of making a racist remark is accusing them of being a racist? Come on Mitch, that’s quite a stretch. Was Don Imus ever actually accused of being a racist? Trent Lott? If they are now considered racists, why do they still retain jobs in the public arena? Because though they were held to account for their racist (ADJ) statements, they were not permanently branded as racists (N).

I say the standard that was set by your examples is to call to account those who make racist remarks. That’s what I did with Schochet.

“It does[n’t] single out a group of people as some lesser form of humanity, nor attribute lesser human capabilities based on ethnicity.”

You're describing the definition of a racist (NOUN). Neither Don Imus’ statement or Trent Lott’s fit this category. A racist remark is one that groups people under a negative judgement, which is exactly what Schochet’s statement did. Remember the definition of Racist – ADJECTIVE; based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race. Prejudices and stereotypes are what motivated Schochet’s statement.

“Rather than playing the race card, perhaps a better approach would have been to refute Barry’s assertion.”

The argument here is not whether Schochet is a racist, it is whether I called him one. I did not. I called his remark racist and used it as a basis to refute his assertion.

Mitch, as I consider you Aspen Post’s foremost authority on word usage and misuse, I expected more from you.

[Reiterating what I said on the show this morning; there is a distinction between calling a remark “racist” (ADJECTIVE) and calling a person “a racist” (NOUN).]

Two things:

First, you pose a distinction with no difference. To declare a statement racist is to impugn the person who said or wrote it, and there’s not a civil libertarian alive today who would disagree. In Michael's example, Don Imus made a racist statement, and CBS fired him for it. He was not condemned for saying “nappy headed hos” (ADJECTIVE) but for embracing the thinking (NOUN) necessary to give rise to that phrase. Similarly, Trent Lott lost his seat as Senate Majority Leader for intimating that Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond would have made a good president. And again, Jimmy the Greek lost his not inconsiderable status in the sports-casting world for a tragically unfortunate explanation of the superiority of black athletes. No one argues that these statements were racist, and no one holds separate the statements from the people who made them. These and like events set precedence that contradict your assertion. I do not question your intentions—I don’t think you intended to call Mr. Schochet a racist. Nevertheless, it is a tortured rationale that puts forth the idea that a standard applied equally to far more public figures does not apply to you.

Second, your premise that Mr. Schochet’s statement was racist is not defensible. You paraphrase him as saying “a majority of Palestinians do not want peace and want to take all of Israel for themselves.” This sentence, if accurately paraphrased, characterizes the motives of the majority of Palestinians. It does single out a group of people as some lesser form of humanity, nor attribute lesser human capabilities based on ethnicity.

Rather than playing the race card, perhaps a better approach would have been to refute Barry’s assertion.

Cheers,

Racist – ADJECTIVE; based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race

Reiterating what I said on the show this morning; there is a distinction between calling a remark “racist” (ADJECTIVE) and calling a person “a racist” (NOUN).

I agree with Michael that labeling a person this way just ends the conversation, but defining the characteristics of a remark begins a conversation. It let’s us dissect the thinking that led someone to make the remark, which is what I did in my post; The Myth of Hatred.

How I use words and how words are used against me has been a large part of my life for the last six years. While I’ve often been the victim of personal attacks and libelous accusations, I’ve been very careful to criticize policies, actions, attitudes and NOT the character of specific people or groups of people. That’s not to say I’ve always succeeded, but an examination of my writing will produce very few examples of real attempts to label people.

As I told Michael, I’ve certainly made racist comments (ADJECTIVE) in my lifetime, but they’ve been made out of ignorance not because I’m a racist (NOUN). This is what I think happened in Barry Schochet’s case. Out of ignorance, he made a blanket statement that reflected his attitude toward a situation, in this case; the Israel/Palestine conflict. In response, I explained why I think it was false and why I think that attitude persists. I was attacking the statement, not the person.

In my opinion, accusing someone of calling another person a racist, as Michael did here and several times on his show today, is just as bad as calling someone a racist. It’s a serious accusation and one I don’t take lightly.

We should probably be more careful with the words we choose, as we’re more than likely going to be judged by them, especially if we're using those words in a public forum such as radio or newspapers or even a blog.