I actually really like and respect the general intellectual capacity and principled committment Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch demonstrate in their journalism and enagement with popular and less popular topics for Reason as well as the guests they interview and the shows/platforms for which they are themselves guests
Snoop is gangsta. Literally a former gang member who got off a murder rap. He was making a comparison to Obama being gangsta because Obama said something similar to a line in a SnoopDog song and Welch picked up on that and basically did a meme or something.
I don’t particularly care about what the race of the subject and the comparison and the writer is, how is that offensive? There was a plausible nexus between Obamas words and Snoops lyrics, they just happen to both be black but so what?
Edit:
Obama makes pop-culture reference to Snoop in service of his political messaging
Matt Welch recognizes reference and points it out in service of own political messaging
I’m not going to play the “why is it okay for a black person to do something but not for a white person to do it” game. I think you just revealed your true self in trying.
I don’t think what Welch said was racist or offensive and I do think what Snoop said was racially-charged and more offensive altho nobody probably cared because it was funny and entertaining.
This whole thing is ridiculous and no, my true self is tolerant of all races. I care about ideas and people getting along in a pluralistic society, not rich white people settling ideological scores because they have time and nothing better to focus on.
I just think you made a basically libellious and nonsensical claim and just because you have a Salon article that says what you want to hear and signal (which consequently fails to persuade at all) doesn’t mean you get to make claims like that without being called on to justify it.
If you took that to a court of law and tried to make a case there you would be laughed out because there is zero substance to it and your claim.
Also, its not about playing a game or whataboutism, you aren’t being consistent. I have a problem when its ok for one group of people to say and do something that for the other group to do in the exact same context or equivalency would be considered “racist”.
How’s that going to help? How is Matt Welch anything you said he is? You made the claim you need to back it up. You haven’t so far.
Why do you get to speculate about race stuff and then when a double standard is suggested you refuse to because now its suddenly a game?
That tells me you aren’t willing to engage with your own same standard which makes it objectively unreasonable. You know if you were forced to answer that you wouldn’t have an articulable basis to do so besides solipsistically citing some shoddy article so you change the rules so you can justify refusing to entertain logically equivalent claims that are problematic for your narrative
I actually really like and respect the general intellectual capacity and principled committment Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch demonstrate in their journalism and enagement with popular and less popular topics for Reason as well as the guests they interview and the shows/platforms for which they are themselves guests
Have you sought help for this problem? It’s not too late.
deleted by creator
Matt Welch is a racist.
https://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/angry_right_gets_mad_when_you_accuse_it_of_race_baiting/
How is
quotingalluding SnoopDog racist?Snoop is gangsta. Literally a former gang member who got off a murder rap. He was making a comparison to Obama being gangsta because Obama said something similar to a line in a SnoopDog song and Welch picked up on that and basically did a meme or something.
I don’t particularly care about what the race of the subject and the comparison and the writer is, how is that offensive? There was a plausible nexus between Obamas words and Snoops lyrics, they just happen to both be black but so what?
Edit:
How is anybody racist, really?
He didn’t say Obama quoted Snoop.
Do you think Welch would have said that if a white politician had said something close to what Snoop said?
But, of course, you’re a fan, so you’re selectively reading the article I gave you.
So why is Ok for SnoopDog to do this
I’m not going to play the “why is it okay for a black person to do something but not for a white person to do it” game. I think you just revealed your true self in trying.
I don’t think what Welch said was racist or offensive and I do think what Snoop said was racially-charged and more offensive altho nobody probably cared because it was funny and entertaining.
This whole thing is ridiculous and no, my true self is tolerant of all races. I care about ideas and people getting along in a pluralistic society, not rich white people settling ideological scores because they have time and nothing better to focus on.
I just think you made a basically libellious and nonsensical claim and just because you have a Salon article that says what you want to hear and signal (which consequently fails to persuade at all) doesn’t mean you get to make claims like that without being called on to justify it.
If you took that to a court of law and tried to make a case there you would be laughed out because there is zero substance to it and your claim.Also, its not about playing a game or whataboutism, you aren’t being consistent. I have a problem when its ok for one group of people to say and do something that for the other group to do in the exact same context or equivalency would be considered “racist”.
Can you show me where the definition of racism exists in the U.S. legal code? You know, since you brought a court of law into it.
How’s that going to help? How is Matt Welch anything you said he is? You made the claim you need to back it up. You haven’t so far.
Why do you get to speculate about race stuff and then when a double standard is suggested you refuse to because now its suddenly a game?
That tells me you aren’t willing to engage with your own same standard which makes it objectively unreasonable. You know if you were forced to answer that you wouldn’t have an articulable basis to do so besides solipsistically citing some shoddy article so you change the rules so you can justify refusing to entertain logically equivalent claims that are problematic for your narrative