Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

(you can listen to what she said here, it's 7 minutes long)

Media Matters wants to chastise Dr Laura Schleissinger who spoke about racism on the radio, calling her comments racist and "breathtaking". She is a bit feisty and sometimes rude, but I don't think she is a racist. Apparently she has said some things that "attack" lesbians as well, but I haven't heard them to know what I think of her position there. I have never listened to Dr Laura before, FYI, so the clip above is all I know about her. I essentially agree with her point with regard to racism and black activist culture, but it is such an unpopular position as to cause trouble. Most people can't wrap their heads around it. The truth that she sees is that the black PC position on racism has become "hypersensitive" to isolated words/references, and is too easily triggered by comments which are not actually racist. Some blacks become unable to see that not every remark that mentions blacks or contains the word nigger is inherently racist. For example, I'm not racist, but by agreeing with Dr Laura (or putting "nigger" in print) I could be labeled such. Even Media Matters didn't get it. Media Matters is a useful media watchdog that busts A-holes (Beck, Limbaugh) in the news constantly, demanding apologies and inciting public outcries against public figures. Media Matters calls Dr Laura insensitive and over the top. But I think they need to look in the mirror, and think a little bit harder. I would call her cranky and tired of reverse racism. PCness limits our ability to communicate frankly about important issues by making some words taboo. I want the media to listen and hear and report on what they understand, not to enforce PCness.


Aug. 18th, 2010 05:27 pm (UTC)
Have you ever taken the Myers-Briggs personality inventory? You're sounding like an SF (the middle two letters). I'm an NT. We value different things, and will likely never come to agreement on this question. To me truth is more important than someone's feelings. To you someone's feelings are more important than truth. Both perspectives are legitimate and valuable. And people who are as different as you and I are rarely close in a personal way.
Aug. 18th, 2010 06:37 pm (UTC)
I see it as......what could be more true than someone's feelings?

I've come up before as INFJ, but other times it's different. It's not a very reliable test, so for someone who values truth, why use the MBTI? I don't think the MBTI says much as people tend to change, act differently, and answer questions differently under different circumstances etc.
Aug. 18th, 2010 09:31 pm (UTC)
I understand your valuation of feelings as being of utmost importance and truth. And I see feelings as emotional states that arise, and pass, and have little bearing on what IS.

As for the MTBI, I have found it to be very useful, and reliable enough for my purposes. It is also true that we humans change over time, and many of us (myself included) score near the midline on some continuums, making a representation based on one extreme vs the other less useful.

I'm sort of relieved that you are an N. Did you know that only approximately 25% are N's? We're notably different from S's and are likely to form social circles amongst ourselves. =-]



Latest Month

August 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars