From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
People should not be mocked or treated disrespectfully for peacefully practicing their private religious beliefs, even though even offensive comments are expressions of free speech. And certainly no peaceful person should be subject to physical threats or intimidation, which should be subject to criminal prosecution. Freedom of conscience, religious or secular, is an unalienable right.
But I don’t think religious intolerance equates to racism. Race is not a matter of choice. Religion is. A person’s ideas, including religious ideas, are chosen and thus legitimately open to scrutiny and criticism. Granted, mocking a person for their attire is childish and ignorant, and the 101.5 hosts should be brushed off as such.
But mocking a person for their religious beliefs is not the same as racism. I get mocked regularly for my rejection of climate catastrophism and my belief that fossil fuels are a net benefit to man’s life: I get called a “denier”–an equation to Holocaust denial. But that is not the same as when, as a child, I witnessed my father being called a “Mafia gangster” simply because of his Italian descent. You can rationally defend your chosen beliefs from attack. How does one defend against attacks based on attributes for which one has no choice about?
Being called “turban man” is no different in principle to being called “climate” or “science denier.” Such smearing should be called out. But they do not sink to the level or evil of racism. They are not racist.
Today on Principled Perspectives; Oblivious, Privilaged Senior Citizen from a majority demographic explains how calling a follower of Sikhism “Turban Man” isn’t racist. Rather than referring to the Attorney General by his title or his name, they opted to refer to him as ‘Turban Man’ and ‘The Man with the Turban’.
“People should not be mocked or treated disrespectfully for peacefully practicing their private religious beliefs, even though even offensive comments are expressions of free speech.”
It’s exhausting having to deal with individuals who misunderstand ‘Free Speech’. The radio presenters were suspended from their private-sector employer because their behavior negatively affected them. They were not working for the Government. They were not forced from their job by the Government. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences.
“I get called a “denier”–an equation to Holocaust denial.”
Now he makes it about himself and how he just rolled with derogatory statements and attitudes, of course since he thinks he’s able to do that than everyone should be able to do it. Of course, his use of his own experience in his argument shows that he is unable to just roll with it. “I’m just as much a victim as you!” insinuates the Oblivious, Privileged Senior Citizen from a Majority Demographic. Unfortunately for him, Climate Denial isn’t a protected class in regards to hate speech. Also it isn’t the same “choice” as being a Sikh, and that insinuation is a different level of disrespect.
Well said!!!
Here I go with some “whitesplaining” or maybe “mansplaining” or whatever else I’m doing wrong because I’m not a minority in any way that counts:
Probably no one would blink an eye if the attorney general were a white man with a strange name and unusual characteristic for his society and some radio hosts just referred to him by that characteristic, giving up on trying to pronounce the name. It’s childish and disrespectful in both cases, especially for radio hosts whose job is pretty much just to talk, but only one scenario produces outrage.
The question really is: was there any malicious intent on the part of the hosts or were they just treating the attorney general like any other person with a “difficult” name and unusual superficial characteristic? It may be that only the hosts themselves know the answer, but that hasn’t stopped others from deciding for themselves.
I have a serious problem with the Left (1) labeling everything with even a whiff of insensitivity toward a minority group as full blown bigotry and hatred and (2) disregarding (or assuming) the intentions of an “offender” whenever the offended is part of a minority group. It is vital that we maintain definitional and moral distinctions among ignorance, insensitivity, disrespect, bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, and actual harm as well as between bad people and bad actions.
I don’t see anything in what I read that should make people assume anything more than that these hosts are childish and disrespectful toward Sikhs. The latter is questionable too if their stated defense–“…if you call me ‘baseball hat man’ in a culture where nobody wears baseball hats, and they call me ‘baseball hat man,’ should I be offended?”–is a genuine reflection of their attitude, even if it is somewhat misguided. In that case, they’re simply disrespectful generally or toward people whom they can easily label, which is not exactly unheard of among radio hosts.
Remember: when you lob terms like “racist” and “bigoted” and “hateful” at someone, you are talking about his character, the content of which is often unknowable unless he makes it explicit through unambiguous speech and action. “Turban man” and “I’ll never know his name,” while childish, by no means reveal that these hosts are hateful racists.
Racism has an evil twin called bigotry. Some say Hitler wasn’t a racist at all, since Jews are not a unique race. But since the “master race” card was played, it still reeks of racism, doesn’t it?
Let’s not be naive. “Turban man” is practically code, and is taken by angry white conservatives as “Muslim”. Call it racism or bigotry. It all amounts to hate. They neither know, nor care, anything about Sikhs. Sikhs are often seen as Muslims and threatened and attacked simply for wearing turbans.
I can tell you that racism is at the lowest ebb of my lifetime, and undoubtedly of all time. Where do you see it, except in the Ivory towers and politics of the collectivist Left?
Downplaying racism is also what racists do. Nevertheless, these are the words of a bigot, and likely white nationalist. Period.
You can call it explaining your POV, you don’t have to refer to it as Whitesplaining or Mansplaining. I hate the dismissive nature of those terms, but your point of view shouldn’t be dismissed because you’re white or you’re a man. I completely understand your point. You actually explained in a better way than what I imagine Michael “I’m a victim too” LaFerrara was trying to express.
“I have a serious problem with the Left (1) labeling everything with even a whiff of insensitivity toward a minority group as full blown bigotry and hatred and (2) disregarding (or assuming) the intentions of an “offender” whenever the offended is part of a minority group. It is vital that we maintain definitional and moral distinctions among ignorance, insensitivity, disrespect, bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, and actual harm as well as between bad people and bad actions.”
1) Where do we draw the line? We are culture that is getting more and more P.C. We’re moving to a society where these kinds of things, these kinds of jokes are less and less acceptable. It could be a situation where you don’t want to give an inch for fear of someone taking mile. Shrug off Turban Man, someone tests the boundaries with a different name or attitude. It’s a more restrictive environment for all of us. Maybe we should all work towards seeing and referring to one another in more precise ways? Don’t call a Sikh, Turban Man. Kinda like not calling a person with glasses, Four Eyes or an Amputee, Peg Leg. Sure, I suppose it narrows it down to some who you are speaking of… but so does their name or title. The DJ could easily have said ‘I can never remember his name, our Attorney General.’ That narrows it down just as well as calling the country’s only Sikh A.G. Turban Man, right?
2) Context. Yes, I’m an advocate for context. I admit I do not know these radio personalities. I do not know if this is their M.O. as Morning Drive-time Shock Jocks. How do we maintain definitional and moral distinctions? This wasn’t something stated in private, it was broadcast to a wide audience and leaving it unaddressed would also be disrespectful towards the offended. Now whether these radio personalities should have been suspended or not is a totally different conversation. Even if the radio personalities are not bigots or xenophobes or whatever else. Say they said these things out of sheer ignorance or they lost their better sense for a few moments in the midst of whatever joke they were trying to set-up? The response they received kind of gets the point across that they (and possibly others) shouldn’t say similar things in similar venues.
“Remember: when you lob terms like “racist” and “bigoted” and “hateful” at someone, you are talking about his character, the content of which is often unknowable unless he makes it explicit through unambiguous speech and action. “Turban man” and “I’ll never know his name,” while childish, by no means reveal that these hosts are hateful racists.” – Ryan
This is completely true. They may not personally be racist. Unfortunately they said something to a broad, disparate audience that could and was construed as racially insensitive. Should they have been suspended? I don’t know. The knee-jerk reactions to these instances is another subject, but I don’t believe having visceral reactions towards offensive things is bad. Harsh reactions often beget quick change.
We are in agreement on all points, I think.
I perceive that this “broad, disparate audience” is too quick to feel offended, too inclined to assume the worst, and often inconsistent in its judgment of supposed bigotry, e.g. a white man’s vs. a black woman’s prejudice toward gay people . I also perceive that the Left is too inclined to coddle these feelings, encourage these inclinations, and let inconsistencies slide, which makes the problem worse, ends up glorifying victimhood (at least of a certain kind), and also provokes backlash.
I try to be understanding. I’m sure that it is difficult for people who are frequently called terms like “turban man” or worse as identifiers in a hostile culture to judge each case by its own merits, give the benefit of the doubt, and keep everything in perspective. It’s easier and feels better to assume the guilt of a suspected offender and it would be no surprise if doing so has much greater than 50% accuracy.
But if this modern Inquisition of sorts wants to promote equality, then methods that treat people unequally according to their skin color or sex or political views are no good. If it wants to have a firm foundation, then it needs to be grounded in objective truths and shared definitions, not simply the varied and fluctuating feelings of varied individuals across varied groups. And if it wants to make headway outside the ideology of its origins, then it needs to be open to dialogue. Concepts like “mansplaining” undermine all three of these goals by excluding groups in favor of elevating a single, unquestioned perspective.
It’s everything the Left should be against, yet somehow much of the Left has convinced itself that acting like the people it opposes is the righteous and effective path to a better society.
This is not to say that I agree with conservatives. There is a middle ground between their usually too simplistic perspective on equality and the absolute mess that is PC culture. But I’m not sure that “middle ground” is this country’s style right now.
I think everyone should be understanding and pull their foot off the gas pedal as far as reacting to these situations, however, for those often the target or subject of the jokes/racism/bigotry, I also understand the feeling that enough is enough. I imagine it can be tiring be the subject of a joke or negative attitude. I can not fault people for reacting the way they do.
I did a little extra looking into these DJs after my last comment. I was trying to find records of their show, but came across the NPR article about their suspension.
Co-Host Dennis Malloy, following the use of “Turban Man” during the radio segment which adds an extra wrinkle of context to the reaction against them:
“If that offends you, then don’t wear the turban,” Malloy said, “And, maybe I’ll remember your name.”
“But if this modern Inquisition of sorts wants to promote equality, then methods that treat people unequally according to their skin color or sex or political views are no good.” – Ryan
I get what you are saying here. Unlike the Inquisition, the reactions to these sorts of scenarios aren’t organized. You and I can stand back and work out a measured response, but for others who these sorts of things affect in a different manner…
” If it wants to have a firm foundation, then it needs to be grounded in objective truths and shared definitions, not simply the varied and fluctuating feelings of varied individuals across varied groups.” – Ryan
I understand this feeling, too. However, it comes off as sounding pie in the sky, doesn’t it? A wide array of different individuals with different experiences and different attitudes. Even if a “shared definition” were to be agreed upon (how, who knows?), you can’t have a shared reaction.
“But I’m not sure that “middle ground” is this country’s style right now.” – Ryan
That does seem to be the reality of right now.
I also read that additional context. It is quite likely that he may not even know the turban’s relevance, especially since he compared it to a baseball cap. Since he could have known better if he had put in a little effort, ignorance is not an excuse, but it *is* an explanation that does not involve bigotry or hatred. I suppose it might constitute a “microaggression” (a mostly valid concept often poorly applied), but most Americans are not meaningfully educated about other religions and cultures and their social circles may not include anyone who could inform them. That is undoubtedly true for most other countries as well.
“I can not fault people for reacting the way they do.”
I’ll have to disagree here. It depends entirely on the reaction.
This isn’t a court of law, but there can still be punishment. If enough people jump to conclusions about someone’s character on the basis of so little, then organize to punish accordingly (including pressuring his employer to fire him), the punishment is likely to outweigh the offense and people who mean well are likely to get hurt. That it makes the offended feel better and sends a message to worse offenders is insufficient justification.
I want to live in a society of people who give each other the benefit of the doubt. That means that I reject bigotry that condemns individuals on the basis of morally meaningless characteristics, but also that I reject witch hunts for such people.
“…it comes off as sounding pie in the sky, doesn’t it?”
I expect some disagreement on what constitutes morally significant insensitivity toward minorities, both across different minority groups and within them.
But as for shared definitions, I am referring again to “ignorance, insensitivity, disrespect, bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, and actual harm.” There can be disagreement here too, but there should not be so much that people confuse an ignorant but well-meaning comment from a rural white American with hate speech, claim that minorities cannot exhibit racism toward white people, or accuse others of “violence against their bodies” for expecting them to “explain their trauma.” Some of what I hear from PC culture would be comical if it weren’t being wielded so seriously and, in some cases, effectively.
In any case, mixed messages usually produce mixed results, so any movement with a goal in mind needs to get its act together. If it can’t by its very nature, that’s a problem.
As for objective truths, I don’t know that I should get into it here. I’m short on time right now anyway.
“I want to live in a society of people who give each other the benefit of the doubt. That means that I reject bigotry that condemns individuals on the basis of morally meaningless characteristics, but also that I reject witch hunts for such people.”
I think you’re right; We’re in agreement. I would prefer we be a society of people who give each other the benefit of the doubt as well. I think we’re just talking past each other vis-a-vis where we are versus where we want to be.
I see your points and understand them. I want to live in that society with you.
To be honest, I was expecting more pushback. I don’t know whether to be satisfied or disappointed.
Next time I’ll bring up blackface and the n word. That ought to do it.
“I came here for an argument!”