Shirley Sherrod, or, I Can't Possibly Be Wrong!

[chris_gerrib]

So, regarding that "let's try and use Shirley Sherrod to smear the NAACP" kerfluffle, I agree completely with John Scalzi. For those not clicking through, the article leads with "it was pretty much a race to see who could possibly be the biggest jackass" and quickly christens Andrew Breitbart as the winner.

Not surprisingly, The Usual Suspects disagree. Apparently, we've missed the point, which was the "inappropriate" audience reaction to Sherrod. This surprises me, I guess, since even Jonah Goldberg gets it.

But this points out a problem with one of the conservative movement's favorite tactics. See, conservatives frequently make arguments based on association. For example, "Elena Kagan wrote a paper on socialism, therefore she's a socialist," or "Obama 'pals around' with terrorists, so you can't trust him."

The problem is, this cuts both ways. So, if you associate with Breitbart, and Breitbart lies (or operates with slanderous disregard for the truth), you are a liar or a slanderer. Since this cannot be tolerated, it must be vigorously contested. Breitbart isn't lying, our eyes are. Or, maybe Sherrod has some other flaw.

Or pink unicorns and Hey! look over there...

But never, under any circumstances, can we conservatives admit error.

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The problem here is the administration officials appear to have let Fox (gods help me I watched O'Reilly smirking about this fact last night) set the agenda without even stopping to think.

The upside for them is this could turn into a real stick to hit Breitbart, or to give him his full name according to Keith Olberman ("the scum, Breitbart") and the right wing with for months into the election cycle.

There's already signs that the BP and Financial Reform issues have done a lot of harm to the huge wins they should be making in November, and the TEA Party seem to be fantastic at scaring moderate Republicans away.

I'm still boggling at the usual suspect's reactions, especially the guy talking about it who didn't see the video. She had every reason to be a racist, and she overcame it.

There was a professor from Princeton on MSNBC yesterday pointing out that everybody is racist to a degree in some of the things they think and say, it's human, we have problems with the "other". That's not really a problem compared to institutional behaviour where you make such reactions an acceptable thing by law.

What Rand keeps labeling as "racism" in his head is often dislike or, more frequently, tribalist, especially with what he says about... well, practically every non-American nation (especially the French). It's not the government now who've devalued the word, it's people like Rand who don't really get what it meant in the first place.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I suspect that Shep Smith isn't long for Fox.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/shepard-smith-unloads-on_n_655013.html

[jetfx.livejournal.com]

You must have some sort of death wish the way you dive into arguing with the Usual Suspects every time an issue like this crops up.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

I guess so. I have a real problem with people completely ignoring the facts and then using made-up facts to support bad conclusions.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

I think adding Gates to the mix really cranked me off. I mean, here's the "liberty and freedom" brigade trying to defend the arrest of a man for breaking into his own house!

This thread was a perfect storm of what sets me off: ignorance of facts, a refusal to admit any error, an extreme "respect" for authority, a lack of intellectual consistency, and a smug tone.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The rank hypocrisy of the "you will respect my authority" coupled to libertarian principles when it suits them, is a defining characteristic of Rand's Peanut Gallery.