The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Was Harry Reid Wrong?

Posted on | January 10, 2010 | 112 Comments

This “light-skinned . . . no Negro dialect” controversy raged while I was on the road yesterday. Somebody told me it about Reid’s remark while I was at a Tea Party event in Altadena, Calif., from which I went straight to the airport for the long flight home. Excuse me, therefore, for being late to the Reid roast.

Of course, conservatives are generally denouncing the hypocrisy and double-standards involved here, asking, “What if a Republican had said what Harry Reid said?” Fair enough. On the other hand, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has a point:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted like an idiot.
Also, he was right.
It’s a measure of the suffocating culture of political correctness that it feels risky to say that. It’s a measure of the insulting how-dumb-do-they-think-we-are culture of incessant partisanship that Republicans leapt on Reid’s remarks as racist.

A good start, except that Marcus goes on to say:

For anyone in public life to use the word “Negro” in 2008 is beyond stupid. What was once polite has become demeaning.

Really? Merely to use “negro” is demeaning? OK, so what about “colored,” as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

You can’t oppose political correctness while simultaneously enforcing political correctness, so my reaction is to (a) stipulate that Harry Reid intended nothing “racist” by his remarks, and (b) offer to pop the popcorn while we watch Democrats explain that liberalism is the virtue that excuses all vices.

It is observed at Hot Air and Protein Wisdom that in 2002, Barack Obama was merciless in regard to Trent Lott’s belated endorsement of Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential campaign. Obama and Democrats were merely playing racial politics in that episode. Is turnabout fair play? That is to say, does it behoove Republicans to crucify Harry Reid like the Democrats crucified Lott?

We’re at a teachable moment here and we ought to begin by acknowledging the fundamental truth of what Harry Reid was awkwardly trying to say: Barack Obama is “less black,” both racially and culturally, than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. If Reid was trying to explain why Obama was electable in a way that Sharpton and Jackson were not, then he hit the nail quite nearly on the head.

This is really just another way in which Obama is like Jimmy Carter, who worked with a vocal coach to “de-Southernize” his accent before the 1976 presidential campaign. If Carter had been perceived as just a standard-issue Southern Democrat a la George Wallace, he never would have been competitive as a presidential candidate. And ditto if Obama had been perceived as a standard-issue black Democrat a la Maxine Waters.

Assuming that this was all Reid was trying to say, then the awkwardness with which he said it ought not serve as fuel for a scandal. Harry Reid is no more a racist than I am.

Hey, at least no one can accuse me of hypocrisy.

UPDATE: (Smitty): What they can do, Stacy, is package a possible implied conflict of interest as a question.  Ethics do matter.  Had money exchanged hands to produce the penultimate sentence of the original post, I’m confident you’d have alerted the reader to the connection.  Or any other non-obvious connection between you and Reid.

Thanks, Mr. Pontificator.

UPDATE II (Smitty): Admonition to lighten up noted.   Pontificate on, sir.

UPDATE III (RSM): After a three-hour nap (recovering from jet-lag) I wake up to discover Patterico’s getting the ‘Lanche by playing off my joke, in a post that links Protein Wisdom.

So we’ll call this a win-win-win, especially since Harry Reid has inspired Amanda Marcotte to declare that “the old white man-ness of the Democratic leadership is becoming a serious problem.” With progressive friends like Marcotte, why does Harry Reid need enemies?

And I’m sure Reid’s re-election campaign will embrace this slogan:

VOTE for HARRY

He’s No More Racist Than Stacy McCain!

Category: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Racism, Senate

Comments

112 Responses to “Was Harry Reid Wrong?”

  1. M. Thompson
    January 10th, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

    Never interrupt the enemy when is causing misfortune to himself.

  2. furious
    January 11th, 2010 @ 12:39 am

    Harry Reid isn’t intentionally racist — true comedy gold is unintentional:

    “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean-cut and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man…” — Joe Biden

    Dingy Harry is just echoing Julian Bond:

    Garrett Morris: [ interrupting ] Well, I think I understand the problem with the tests. But the fact is that people have been saying that white people are smarter than black for hundreds of years. We’ve only had I.Q. tests for 20 or 30 years. How did the idea of white intellectual superiority originate?

    Julian Bond: That’s an interesting point. My theory is that it’s based on the fact that light-skinned blacks are smarter than dark-skinned blacks.

    Garrett Morris: [ not sure he heard that right ] Say what?

  3. furious
    January 10th, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

    Harry Reid isn’t intentionally racist — true comedy gold is unintentional:

    “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean-cut and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man…” — Joe Biden

    Dingy Harry is just echoing Julian Bond:

    Garrett Morris: [ interrupting ] Well, I think I understand the problem with the tests. But the fact is that people have been saying that white people are smarter than black for hundreds of years. We’ve only had I.Q. tests for 20 or 30 years. How did the idea of white intellectual superiority originate?

    Julian Bond: That’s an interesting point. My theory is that it’s based on the fact that light-skinned blacks are smarter than dark-skinned blacks.

    Garrett Morris: [ not sure he heard that right ] Say what?

  4. Bob Belvedere
    January 11th, 2010 @ 1:11 am

    Patterico wrote: It was not personal, it was strictly business.

    In the uncut version of The Godfather films, The Godfather Epic, in one of the restored scenes, Michael says, I believe to Tom Hagen, after the lawyer reminds him of that phrase, ‘Tom, everything is personal’.

  5. Bob Belvedere
    January 10th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

    Patterico wrote: It was not personal, it was strictly business.

    In the uncut version of The Godfather films, The Godfather Epic, in one of the restored scenes, Michael says, I believe to Tom Hagen, after the lawyer reminds him of that phrase, ‘Tom, everything is personal’.

  6. Ran / Si Vis Pacem
    January 11th, 2010 @ 1:57 am

    NO. We are not dumping on Reid for “racism.” We are dumping on Democrats for their insufferable zero-tolerance, as demonstrated via the ‘maccaca’ massacre. hammer them on the standards issues, not on what Reid said. Bob B, in doing that we avoid being hypocrites.

    There are more important, substantive tactical reasons for piling-on the vulnerable Reid, not the least of which is distraction from the agenda.

  7. Ran / Si Vis Pacem
    January 10th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

    NO. We are not dumping on Reid for “racism.” We are dumping on Democrats for their insufferable zero-tolerance, as demonstrated via the ‘maccaca’ massacre. hammer them on the standards issues, not on what Reid said. Bob B, in doing that we avoid being hypocrites.

    There are more important, substantive tactical reasons for piling-on the vulnerable Reid, not the least of which is distraction from the agenda.

  8. Sarah
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:23 am

    Trent Lott was an avid supporter of racial segregation. In fact, he said that of Thurmond that we would be a lot better off now had his segregation platform prevailed. That is more inexcusable than even Bill Bennetts black abortion comment; Reid’s comment doesn’t even fall under the same category. It’s not a double standard because Trent Lott has been a life-long supporter of white supremacy over African Americans. Reid was just getting excited that he’d found a worthy candidate for president, and that he could even get elected to boot, DESPITE many Americans’ racism.

  9. Sarah
    January 10th, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

    Trent Lott was an avid supporter of racial segregation. In fact, he said that of Thurmond that we would be a lot better off now had his segregation platform prevailed. That is more inexcusable than even Bill Bennetts black abortion comment; Reid’s comment doesn’t even fall under the same category. It’s not a double standard because Trent Lott has been a life-long supporter of white supremacy over African Americans. Reid was just getting excited that he’d found a worthy candidate for president, and that he could even get elected to boot, DESPITE many Americans’ racism.

  10. lions
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:30 am

    Does this mean all Spanish speaking people are racist, I mean they call African Americans, “Negros” of course you have to say this with an accent. As far as I know it is not meant to be derogatory. This is ridiculous, my ancestors are Italian the last generation to call themselves Italian Americans are my great grand parents born in Italy.

  11. lions
    January 10th, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

    Does this mean all Spanish speaking people are racist, I mean they call African Americans, “Negros” of course you have to say this with an accent. As far as I know it is not meant to be derogatory. This is ridiculous, my ancestors are Italian the last generation to call themselves Italian Americans are my great grand parents born in Italy.

  12. William Jefferson Clinton
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:32 am

    No surprise that 60 Minutes is slamming Hillary and Sarah. Barack gets a pass. 60 Minutes just hates women.

    I love women.

    Sarah, if you ever need a big old shoulder to cry on. Let me know.

  13. William Jefferson Clinton
    January 10th, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

    No surprise that 60 Minutes is slamming Hillary and Sarah. Barack gets a pass. 60 Minutes just hates women.

    I love women.

    Sarah, if you ever need a big old shoulder to cry on. Let me know.

  14. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:38 am

    For the record, everyone knows my dispute with Stacy McCain was just a joke. Smitty knows that. Stacy knows that. Ha Ha.

    I am sure he will get me back some day.

  15. Patterico
    January 10th, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

    For the record, everyone knows my dispute with Stacy McCain was just a joke. Smitty knows that. Stacy knows that. Ha Ha.

    I am sure he will get me back some day.

  16. Americaneocon
    January 11th, 2010 @ 6:16 am

    “For the record, everyone knows my dispute with Stacy McCain was just a joke. Smitty knows that.

    Is that supposed to be serious? Humor is humor, and trying to dodge an ill-considered non-funny put down as “deadpan” is pretty low.

  17. Americaneocon
    January 11th, 2010 @ 1:16 am

    “For the record, everyone knows my dispute with Stacy McCain was just a joke. Smitty knows that.

    Is that supposed to be serious? Humor is humor, and trying to dodge an ill-considered non-funny put down as “deadpan” is pretty low.

  18. young4eyes
    January 11th, 2010 @ 6:27 am

    The beauty of “teachable” moments like these is that inevitably Cons will come out of the woodworks and offer up some unfortunate remark and opinions which serves us better than not.
    In your own ass-backwards wisdom, Stacy, you have asked the most important question you could ask those Cons who are feigning “racial” disgust regarding Reid’s comments: do you think he is right?
    It’s a lose-lose for you guys.
    On the one hand, if you agree with the guy you do fall in line with the antiquated thinking that informs racist tendencies( after all Reid IS a Mormon and we all know about their unfortunate–ahem–beliefs concerning African-Americans).
    On the other hand, if you decry Reid’s comments as racist, you are on the record when most of you defended George Allen’s disgusting remarks, making you a hypocrite one way or the other.
    Tough titties, eh?
    There is so much that is wrong with your post, Stacy, that I can’t begin to get into it. From your less than sophisticated defense of the term” negro” to your assertions about electability via the way one speaks, you are right in suggesting that Reid is no more a racist than you are. I’m sure Reid doesn’t think he is one either….

  19. young4eyes
    January 11th, 2010 @ 1:27 am

    The beauty of “teachable” moments like these is that inevitably Cons will come out of the woodworks and offer up some unfortunate remark and opinions which serves us better than not.
    In your own ass-backwards wisdom, Stacy, you have asked the most important question you could ask those Cons who are feigning “racial” disgust regarding Reid’s comments: do you think he is right?
    It’s a lose-lose for you guys.
    On the one hand, if you agree with the guy you do fall in line with the antiquated thinking that informs racist tendencies( after all Reid IS a Mormon and we all know about their unfortunate–ahem–beliefs concerning African-Americans).
    On the other hand, if you decry Reid’s comments as racist, you are on the record when most of you defended George Allen’s disgusting remarks, making you a hypocrite one way or the other.
    Tough titties, eh?
    There is so much that is wrong with your post, Stacy, that I can’t begin to get into it. From your less than sophisticated defense of the term” negro” to your assertions about electability via the way one speaks, you are right in suggesting that Reid is no more a racist than you are. I’m sure Reid doesn’t think he is one either….

  20. Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing | Ron Paul.Us
    January 11th, 2010 @ 2:04 am

    […] saying that he told the truth, however . . . awkwardly. See, for example, Robert Stacy McCain, who declares: “Harry Reid is no more a racist than I am.” (Did Reid hit McCain’s tip jar?) And indeed, I […]

  21. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 7:32 am

    Americaneocon,

    I did not leave the previous comments on this thread that purport to be made by me.

    They were almost certainly left by a commenter named Joe, who has used my name on other threads here and on other blogs (and has attempted to sock-puppet on my blog, which is part of the reason I suspect Joe is the culprit here).

    Stacy McCain is aware of this (I e-mailed him about it), but has not chosen to ban Joe or prevent him from sock-puppeting my name.

    I’m sorry for any confusion, but I can’t control how other people run their blogs. All I can do is tell them about it. If they choose to ignore it, there’s nothing more I can do about it.

  22. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 2:32 am

    Americaneocon,

    I did not leave the previous comments on this thread that purport to be made by me.

    They were almost certainly left by a commenter named Joe, who has used my name on other threads here and on other blogs (and has attempted to sock-puppet on my blog, which is part of the reason I suspect Joe is the culprit here).

    Stacy McCain is aware of this (I e-mailed him about it), but has not chosen to ban Joe or prevent him from sock-puppeting my name.

    I’m sorry for any confusion, but I can’t control how other people run their blogs. All I can do is tell them about it. If they choose to ignore it, there’s nothing more I can do about it.

  23. Robert Stacy McCain
    January 11th, 2010 @ 8:29 am

    Patterico: Sorry about Joe’s bogus sock-puppetry, sir. I don’t spend much time policing the comments, since to do so would require the kind of paranoid self-obsession that appears to have gripped Charles Johnson. Also, as I have frequently ackowledged, I am way behind on my e-mail.

    Shit therefore happens, and it’s all I can do to deal with my own problems. Also, in true-confession mode, I once commented at AOSHQ as “Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.” Or right kidney, I forget which. The reputation of Chuck’s testicles and/or kidneys managed to withstand that prank.

    Just sayin’ . . .

  24. Robert Stacy McCain
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:29 am

    Patterico: Sorry about Joe’s bogus sock-puppetry, sir. I don’t spend much time policing the comments, since to do so would require the kind of paranoid self-obsession that appears to have gripped Charles Johnson. Also, as I have frequently ackowledged, I am way behind on my e-mail.

    Shit therefore happens, and it’s all I can do to deal with my own problems. Also, in true-confession mode, I once commented at AOSHQ as “Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.” Or right kidney, I forget which. The reputation of Chuck’s testicles and/or kidneys managed to withstand that prank.

    Just sayin’ . . .

  25. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 8:58 am

    “Also, in true-confession mode, I once commented at AOSHQ as ‘Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.'”

    I don’t know Americaneocon, but I doubt that he would have been misled by such a comment into thinking that he was actually reading a comment from Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.

    Which makes your sock-puppeting a bit different from Joe’s, I think.

  26. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:58 am

    “Also, in true-confession mode, I once commented at AOSHQ as ‘Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.'”

    I don’t know Americaneocon, but I doubt that he would have been misled by such a comment into thinking that he was actually reading a comment from Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.

    Which makes your sock-puppeting a bit different from Joe’s, I think.

  27. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 9:02 am

    Did Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle tell people to hit your tip jar?

    That’s usually the giveaway.

  28. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 4:02 am

    Did Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle tell people to hit your tip jar?

    That’s usually the giveaway.

  29. A: Hume should have advised him to become a liberal democrat « DaTechguy's Blog
    January 11th, 2010 @ 6:09 am

    […] Stacy’s brilliant post not withstanding it’s not mine or Glenn Reynolds, or Andrew Sullivan’s forgiveness that matters, its […]

  30. This isn’t Reid’s first racial rodeo
    January 11th, 2010 @ 8:06 am

    […] saying that he told the truth, however . . . awkwardly. See, for example, Robert Stacy McCain, who declares: “Harry Reid is no more a racist than I am.” (Did Reid hit McCain’s tip jar?) And indeed, I […]

  31. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

    I ban people who disagree with me. It is the best way to deal with dissent.

  32. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 9:37 am

    I ban people who disagree with me. It is the best way to deal with dissent.

  33. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

    I also have a great sense of humor, love walks on the beach, and love spirited discussions on politics and race, if anyone is interested. Call me!

  34. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 9:42 am

    I also have a great sense of humor, love walks on the beach, and love spirited discussions on politics and race, if anyone is interested. Call me!

  35. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

    Well all good games have to end. Patterico only really commented on some of these comments. Now Hit the Tip Jar!

  36. Patterico
    January 11th, 2010 @ 9:49 am

    Well all good games have to end. Patterico only really commented on some of these comments. Now Hit the Tip Jar!

  37. ThomasD
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

    Ruth Marcus would have a point if she were to call on all of Harry Reid’s defenders (Obama and the rest) to clearly state their agreement with her position – now and forever.

    As it is she is willing to criticize Republicans for engaging in criticism of Reid, but will not call out her home team for all the times past when they have done just the same.

    This issue isn’t about Harry Reid. Harry Reid is just an idiot who managed to bring the issue forward.

    This is about hypocrisy and the Democrat Party’s double standard on racial code speak.

  38. ThomasD
    January 11th, 2010 @ 10:21 am

    Ruth Marcus would have a point if she were to call on all of Harry Reid’s defenders (Obama and the rest) to clearly state their agreement with her position – now and forever.

    As it is she is willing to criticize Republicans for engaging in criticism of Reid, but will not call out her home team for all the times past when they have done just the same.

    This issue isn’t about Harry Reid. Harry Reid is just an idiot who managed to bring the issue forward.

    This is about hypocrisy and the Democrat Party’s double standard on racial code speak.

  39. I'm Not Patterico (and not wri
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

    A Patterico reader wrote:

    Careful, Patterico, your insufferable arrogance is showing…

    Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

    I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

    I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

    So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

    Comment by highcotton — 1/10/2010 @ 3:45 pm

  40. I'm Not Patterico (and not written by Tom Stoppard)
    January 11th, 2010 @ 10:24 am

    A Patterico reader wrote:

    Careful, Patterico, your insufferable arrogance is showing…

    Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

    I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

    I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

    So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

    Comment by highcotton — 1/10/2010 @ 3:45 pm

  41. I'm Not Patterico (and not wri
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

    Patterico responded back to his reader in Fisking style:

    “I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites.”

    This is obvious.

    “But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct?”

    No.

    But Heaven forbid you should actually read what I said, rather than mischaracterizations on other sites.

    “But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct?”

    No.

    But why listen to what I say? You prefer to have your opinions spoon-fed to you by others, it seems.

    People make jokes about others whether they’re on good terms with them or not. For those lacking a sense of humor, I have now added a hyperlink to make it clear I was joking.

    Now hit my tip jar.

    Comment by Patterico — 1/10/2010 @ 3:59 pm

  42. I'm Not Patterico (and not written by Tom Stoppard)
    January 11th, 2010 @ 10:26 am

    Patterico responded back to his reader in Fisking style:

    “I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites.”

    This is obvious.

    “But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct?”

    No.

    But Heaven forbid you should actually read what I said, rather than mischaracterizations on other sites.

    “But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct?”

    No.

    But why listen to what I say? You prefer to have your opinions spoon-fed to you by others, it seems.

    People make jokes about others whether they’re on good terms with them or not. For those lacking a sense of humor, I have now added a hyperlink to make it clear I was joking.

    Now hit my tip jar.

    Comment by Patterico — 1/10/2010 @ 3:59 pm

  43. Herb Gardner
    January 11th, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

    I’m not Patterico either.

  44. Herb Gardner
    January 11th, 2010 @ 10:29 am

    I’m not Patterico either.

  45. Bob Belvedere
    January 11th, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

    Ran [comment #23]: You prompted me to clarify my posting over at my site: The Camp Of The Saints.

  46. Bob Belvedere
    January 11th, 2010 @ 11:29 am

    Ran [comment #23]: You prompted me to clarify my posting over at my site: The Camp Of The Saints.

  47. Joe
    January 11th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

    Patterico’s own words say it all. One of his readers (not me, although he seems to know him well) posts:

    Careful, Patterico, your insufferable arrogance is showing…

    Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

    I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

    I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

    So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

    Comment by highcotton — 1/10/2010 @ 3:45 pm

    Patterico replied:

    “I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites.”

    This is obvious.

    “But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct?”

    No.

    But Heaven forbid you should actually read what I said, rather than mischaracterizations on other sites.

    “But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct?”

    No.

    But why listen to what I say? You prefer to have your opinions spoon-fed to you by others, it seems.

    People make jokes about others whether they’re on good terms with them or not. For those lacking a sense of humor, I have now added a hyperlink to make it clear I was joking.

    Now hit my tip jar.

    Comment by Patterico — 1/10/2010 @ 3:59 pm

  48. Joe
    January 11th, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

    Patterico’s own words say it all. One of his readers (not me, although he seems to know him well) posts:

    Careful, Patterico, your insufferable arrogance is showing…

    Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

    I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

    I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

    So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

    Comment by highcotton — 1/10/2010 @ 3:45 pm

    Patterico replied:

    “I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites.”

    This is obvious.

    “But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct?”

    No.

    But Heaven forbid you should actually read what I said, rather than mischaracterizations on other sites.

    “But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct?”

    No.

    But why listen to what I say? You prefer to have your opinions spoon-fed to you by others, it seems.

    People make jokes about others whether they’re on good terms with them or not. For those lacking a sense of humor, I have now added a hyperlink to make it clear I was joking.

    Now hit my tip jar.

    Comment by Patterico — 1/10/2010 @ 3:59 pm

  49. Stinky
    January 11th, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

    Yes, and the parallel word, “Caucasian,” is also beyond the pale. Heh, heh.

  50. Stinky
    January 11th, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

    Yes, and the parallel word, “Caucasian,” is also beyond the pale. Heh, heh.

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin