In what context is “gang-raped by my big black brothers” okay?
October 6, 2008 by Laura | Trackback URI
As usual - push back a bit against one of these fascist leftists and they fold like a cheap lawnchair. Sandra Bernhard now claims that her suggestion that Governor Sarah Palin would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she came to New York was taken out of context.
Someone, please explain to me: in what context is that comment okay?
When is the suggestion that gang rape is an appropriate response to opposing political views okay? When is the suggestion that gang rape is acceptable at all, for any reason, okay?
When is the implication that black men might gang rape a white woman because of her political views okay? Why black men? Does Ms. Bernhard believe it’s worse to be raped by black men then by men of other races? If so, why is it worse?
Since rape is a crime, and Ms. Bernhard is suggesting that raping Sarah Palin would be justifiable punishment for her political views, if Sarah Palin were raped, would Ms. Bernhard be guilty of instigating a hate crime? Would it be okay for me to suggest that Sandra Bernhard should be gang raped because I disagree with her vehemently?
Enlighten me.
Why, it’s alright in the same context that “God D*mn America!” and the idea that the US Gov created AIDS is just fine!
When questioning it would run counter to the Approved Minority Person, and thus be Racist.
It is more acceptable then murdering people by bombs in their homes. After all she is just spouting vitriol. Bombing innocent people, even by accident, is far, far worse. Accidental murder is still murder.
First, lets stop murdering walking, talking, air breathing human beings. Once we get over that hurdle, maybe we can move on to something else, like stopping other people from murdering human beings.
PS: If we can’t even agree that murder is wrong, is it surprising that people like her spout off like that?
Wondering - Way to be morally equivalent!
War is not at all the same as murder.
Laura,
Are you saying that we have declared war on Iraqi and afghani civilians?
If not, are saying it is ok to kill these people, because they happen to be in the way?
Wondering
Let me answer you with this CS Lewis quote, from The Weight of Glory:
Laura,
I like the quote, had not read it before, and I trust/hope you and I will agree that Mr. Lewis is far more familar with the horrors of war then we are. (If you have been injured in combat, accept my thanks for your sacrafice and appologies for pushing this discussion.) If not…….
This quote is situational, war is acceptable in if extreme suppression is occuring. This marks the american civil war against slavery and WWII as examples of wars that Lewis agrees with. But this quote is very limited, to extreme circumstance.
The interpretation you are taking is broadening this idea so widely as to render it meaningless.
As an example, could athesists claim that being forced to recite the pledge of allegiance as a form of suppression, they certainly could. In that case, are they allowed to declare war on the united states, and commence killing US citizens at will? I trust you see the point. The quote does not apply to all war.
The ongoing conflict in Iraq, where the populous was not so inclined to fight, and actually wants the united states to leave, by an overwhelming majority, is not covered by the above quote. Death of even one Iraqi, even by accident, by an undesired intruder is murder.
I leave you with a quote by Tolstoy:
In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.
Good grief. I started not to engage with you because people who make everything about the war just annoy the heck out of me. But I did, so I guess I’m stuck with that decision. Nor do I accept your “facts” at face value, especially how you’re defining murder.
But let’s recap: you began by excusing Sandra Bernhard’s disgraceful comments because civilians are killed in a war zone. Then you ask if we’ve declared war on civilians; a simplistic and ridiculous question. You don’t want an honest debate; you want to fight. Which I find quite ironic, but that’s another post for another day.
I will say this:
Having decided to go to war, (whether or not you agree with that decision) surely you understand that CIVILIANS WILL BE KILLED. Good grief, are you a child?! Our troops make every effort not to, but it does happen and it will continue to happen. It’s one of the many reasons War Is Bad.
Nevertheless, our leaders (including Democrats) agreed that we should do this thing. Saddam’s repeated violations of the Gulf I ceasefire were adequate casus belli, but there were, IIRC, 17 reasons on the authorization to use force and both Democrats and Republicans voted for it. Subsequent claims of having been somehow tricked - perhaps by a Rovian mind-ray or by Darth Cheney - just make them look even more stupid.
There are consequences to these decisions that every single one of the men and women who voted for the authorization should have understood even though they are undeniably idiots. One consequence is a boatload of money spent. Another is many lives lost. That’s how life goes. That’s how war works.
In any event, it would be futile for you and I to argue over whether it was a good decision. It’s done. If I wanted to argue with you, there are more important topics on which to spend our time and energy. I do not, however, want to argue because it is clear to me that it would be a complete waste of time; we don’t even agree on the facts so debate is useless.
And none of that has anything to do with the fact that Sandra Bernhard is a disgrace, not just to women, but to human beings, and there’s no excuse whatsoever for what she said.
You and I agree much more then you care to admit.
Back to the main point, no excuse on my part for whatever her rabid name is, she should not have said that, it is disgraceful.
But, given that we, as a people, condone the continued occupation of a foriegn land, what do we expect?
Talk about the war, talk about the melt down of the economy, talk about universal health care, but paying attention to Ms. Rabid is a pointless distraction and makes her matter, where she should not.
It’s not a matter of caring to admit something, Wondering. I don’t want to get into that at all. It was off topic, and a topic I hate to get into because there are basic facts that it’s clear we would not agree on. (See my comment policy.) If I wanted to argue it, my brother would oblige me with pleasure - he’s on the opposite side of the debate and was very passionate about it, last time it came up.
I will not argue certain things about the war, but I do talk about certain aspects of it here as well as the other things you mentioned. I also think it’s important to call out Sandra Bernhard and others for saying this stuff. She stands on her soapbox and claims to have a superior moral position -
When in fact she specifically DID make a specific joke about a crime against women, and made it clear that Palin not only doesn’t deserve protection, she deserves punishment. She justifies this because Palin is pro-life and Bernhard is pro-choice, but that is not a justification. She should just apologize, admit she was out of bounds because she is extremely passionate about this issue and basically just ran off at the mouth, and leave it at that. Instead she gave the standard political non-apology - “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” She basically requested that she be judged on her motives, not her words/actions - a courtesy she will not extend to Palin.
AND she was racist, to boot. If anyone on the right made such an outrageous statement, they’d be tarred and feathered and driven from public life.
war is acceptable in if extreme suppression is occurring
Such as grabbing those that the sons of the dictator thinks are cute off of the street for rape, or feeding accused protesters through wood chippers?
How about using power drills on “traitors”?
Also: No, the idea that Iraqis “overwhelmingly” want us gone has not been shown, and the supposed death-count for civvies is much disputed. In no small part because of that horrific atrocity of a Lancet study.
All of this STILL doesn’t make it alright to “joke” about having those you disagree with gang raped. Even if the Hussein sons would’ve gladly joined in.