NPR fires Juan Williams for Muslim remarks on Fox

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is a pathetic shame that this man lost his job for those remarks. How dare he speak truthfully. Someone might get their feathers ruffled.

PC is a folly. It was not an innocent mistake. It was a truthful statement that represents the feeling of a large portion of Americans.

Otherwise, being told to be "more diligent" is just stupid lip service. This man got fired for discussing his "vigilience" against terror attacks.

edit on 21-10-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Ahh, going by the old mantra of "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim!"

It's people like Juan Williams who want rights for other Americans to be limited because of their skin color, or their religion, or their ethnicity...

Disgusting...

It is people like Mak Manto who erect strawmen and ride the slippery slope for fallacious debate techniques.

The mantra is more, "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, so while it is ok to be nervous you need to not paint with a broad brush."

See, this was not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Juan Williams believes we should profile Muslims...

In this country, we do not racial profile...

It’s not just a matter of political correctness, please. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, it shouldn’t be done. We do not in this country prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, sex, country of national origin and it’s wrong to do so and it addition it’s not effective. It doesn’t work. It actually perpetuates the problem. That is, it separates us.

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is a pathetic shame that this man lost his job for those remarks. How dare he speak truthfully. Someone might get their feathers ruffled.

PC is a folly. It was not an innocent mistake. It was a truthful statement that represents the feeling of a large portion of Americans.

Otherwise, being told to be "more diligent" is just stupid lip service. This man got fired for discussing his "vigilience" against terror attacks.

edit on 21-10-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Ahh, going by the old mantra of "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim!"

It's people like Juan Williams who want rights for other Americans to be limited because of their skin color, or their religion, or their ethnicity...

Disgusting...

It is people like Mak Manto who erect strawmen and ride the slippery slope for fallacious debate techniques.

The mantra is more, "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, so while it is ok to be nervous you need to not paint with a broad brush."

See, this was not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Juan Williams believes we should profile Muslims...

In this country, we do not racial profile...

It’s not just a matter of political correctness, please. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, it shouldn’t be done. We do not in this country prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, sex, country of national origin and it’s wrong to do so and it addition it’s not effective. It doesn’t work. It actually perpetuates the problem. That is, it separates us.

Please, please, read what he said in his statement. Don't just cherry pick a sentence and get upset. Put it in context with what he said.

There is nothing illegal about having a feeling that you stifle because you intellectually know better. This is what he said we should do: stifle those feelings.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Yes,

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire

The left and the right need to come together or they will find themselves strangers in their own country.

I believe the majority of us have more in common then not,

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is a pathetic shame that this man lost his job for those remarks. How dare he speak truthfully. Someone might get their feathers ruffled.

PC is a folly. It was not an innocent mistake. It was a truthful statement that represents the feeling of a large portion of Americans.

Otherwise, being told to be "more diligent" is just stupid lip service. This man got fired for discussing his "vigilience" against terror attacks.

edit on 21-10-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Ahh, going by the old mantra of "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim!"

It's people like Juan Williams who want rights for other Americans to be limited because of their skin color, or their religion, or their ethnicity...

Disgusting...

It is people like Mak Manto who erect strawmen and ride the slippery slope for fallacious debate techniques.

The mantra is more, "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, so while it is ok to be nervous you need to not paint with a broad brush."

See, this was not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Juan Williams believes we should profile Muslims...

In this country, we do not racial profile...

It’s not just a matter of political correctness, please. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, it shouldn’t be done. We do not in this country prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, sex, country of national origin and it’s wrong to do so and it addition it’s not effective. It doesn’t work. It actually perpetuates the problem. That is, it separates us.

Please, please, read what he said in his statement. Don't just cherry pick a sentence and get upset. Put it in context with what he said.

There is nothing illegal about having a feeling that you stifle because you intellectually know better. This is what he said we should do: stifle those feelings.

I'm not going into his statements and rearranging his words around. I'm replying to what he said, which is just wrong on so many levels.

This bigotry is self perpetuating! It's an issue because we make it an issue.. We allow the media to drill anti-muslim sentiments into our brains without really considering the facts, and we talk about it as if it is the one and only truth. I'm not saying ignore it, but we don't need to put every miniscule event on blast! We've selected a target and we're going to nit pick at every aspect of their being until everyones hates them.

reply to post by Mak Manto


OK then...just to make sure you are clear on what he did say:

...Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims...

...And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without fear having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry...

So, you are saying that he is wrong? That we SHOULD allow our fears lead to violating peoples constitutional rights?

That is what you are saying.

Originally posted by centurion1211
But you (purposely?) leave out the key point - NPR gets public funding and Fox News does not.

I did not leave that out. I addressed it in another post.

Otherwise, it would just be about free speech and how political correctness tries to deny free speech.

How is this about free speech? He exercised his right to speak his mind. No one denied him free speech. That's insane.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
There is nothing illegal about having a feeling that you stifle because you intellectually know better. This is what he said we should do: stifle those feelings.

I think if we injected rationality into those feelings, they would go away. There is also nothing illegal about NPR firing Williams. Like I said before, everyone exercised their rights. There is no wrong here.

Just wanted to add in case no one had up to this point:

NPR announced that they were firing Juan Williams over his comments Wednesday night because he had breached journalistic standards wherein NPR journalists are not allowed to make remarks that would alter the appearance of their neutrality.

PoliticusUSA

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Juan Williams believes we should profile Muslims...

When did he say that? What he said was that it makes him nervous to fly with Muslims in full garb.
How does that translate into him saying that Muslims should be profiled?

In this country, we do not racial profile...

1 - yes we do. And the dirty secret is .. right or wrong ... police depts say that it works.
2 - Islam isn't a race.


The SOROS connection really should be looked at more closely.
With his billions he's buying what NPR does.
Republican ... democrat ... no difference when it comes to the media.
Big $$$ with agendas behind every decision.

And here you've got Juan Williams, speaking in a venue that allows for him to say 'my personal situation is _______' .... and yet he gets fired for it. He didn't say 'ALL MUSLIMS ARE ____'. He said how he feels. He shouldn't be afraid to do so. Being afraid to say things because they aren't PC is why the Fort Hood shooter (the Major) got away with what he did. Those around him said they were afraid to come forward to express their fears because they didn't want to be labeled 'unPC' and they didn't want to get in trouble.

Some of you are missing something .. the fact that Juan ADMITTED his fear on TV .. that's a good thing. He admitted it and voiced that HE has a problem. This opens doors for discussion on TV as to why people are afraid ... opens doors for education of people. IMHO.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The only two wrongs i see here:

- if you view them simply as a provider of service, as a potential customer I do not believe I will patronize them any longer. It looks like partisan politics to me, and they will be relegated to the same pile as MSNBC, Fox, et al.

- If you view them as a governmental extension (by virtue of the Fed money that pays their bills), it is possibly government censorship.

Outside of that, I agree. Everyone acted within their rights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by Darkrunner
It's not right to stereotype, but all stereotypes were started for a reason. It isn't swedish people blowing up planes. It isn't the french, nor the poles nor the canadians, nor the spanish.

Nor people wearing "traditional Muslim garb." Thus a fail on that statement.

And this is what frustrates me so! People are more than willing to be prejudiced against Americans wearing "traditional Muslim garb", thinking that's the way terrorists look! That's been pounded into our heads and for people who don't think for themselves, they BOUGHT it! Shame on ANYONE who calls themselves a critical thinker, yet buys this crap. May I remind you all what the 9/11 hijackers looked like:

If you buy the official story:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/563b8d3264c1.jpg[/atsimg]

And if you DON'T buy the official story:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44a7675fc1f2.jpg[/atsimg]

NONE of them were dressed in "traditional Muslim garb" and for anyone to be afraid of those who are just shows the irrationality of this fear! It shows that you believe the media's LIES about Islam and their followers.

Fair point. But do you think what he said was worthy of firing? The man didn't call them camel jockeys, he said they make him nervous.

Anyways, I agree with Juan Williams not very often. But I think he got the shaft in this case.

But look at the money behind NPR and you begin to understand...

reply to post by Arroyo.hondo

Really?
Then what about this:

NPR’s allowable “journalism” Nina Totenburg wishes Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
Nina Totenburg told PBS’s Inside Washington that if there was “retributive justice” in the world then Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” Jesse Helm may have been a slime, but that’s a topic for another time. NPR had no problems with that remark, and Nina Totenburg is still working for NPR 15 years later in 2010.

www.fireandreamitchell.com...

Wouldn't you say that there is a double standard here? I don't think that hoping that a Senator of the US(since deceased) would get aids and die, would qualify for being unbiased, and yet, she still works for NPR.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
- If you view them as a governmental extension (by virtue of the Fed money that pays their bills), it is possibly government censorship.

en.wikipedia.org...

NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[18] The amount of funding NPR receives from groups like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which does receive federal funding, is less than two percent. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Fair point. But do you think what he said was worthy of firing? The man didn't call them camel jockeys, he said they make him nervous.

After reading NPR's statement about his past issues and repeated warnings, I can understand why they fired him. I don't think this statement was worthy of firing. But I understand it.

But look at the money behind NPR and you begin to understand...

Assumptions can be made about the money they receive, but I have seen no evidence that they fired him because of some funding. That's just a suspicion.

PLEASE trim your quotes!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But we all know why they did fire him, don't we?

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


She did not say that. Beware of sentences with only some words in quotes. She actually said, “If there is retributive justice, he’ll get aids from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will
get it." Speaking of his fight against gays.

She did not WISH it upon him. Helms opposed aids treatment, aids research, aids prevention and blamed gays for aids.

reply to post by Darkrunner


You know, some people like to assume they know more than they do. I'm not one of those people. I don't like to assume. All I've got are the facts and what both NPR and Williams have said. I don't see anything wrong. These things happen and there are consequences for actions. Such is life.

NPR is so dumb. I always like to hear Juan's commentary, he's one of the more sober personalities on Fox. Just read that Fox is going to increase his roll and give him a raise. I'm happy for him. If anything this act by NPR will only help Juan's career in the long run. And as bad as Fox can be, this incident just shows how silly it is that these other networks and media outlets worry about why their ratings go down while Fox's go up. When you ditch good media talent, they're going to go attract ratings elsewhere. NPR Fail.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

“If there is retributive justice, he’ll get aids from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

That is certainly riding a fine line BH. If you don't think that is expressing an opinion, I think you should re-examine what the definition of "opinion" is.
Your response is about as partisan as a response can be. You know as well as I do, that if Juan Williams had said that, HE still would have been fired. I think you need to take your partisan glasses off on this one, BH, with all due respect.
Furthermore, how low can someone get by believing that someone's GRANDCHILDREN should be punished for the sins of the grandfather?
Come on, how can you DEFEND THAT? REALLY?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


And this is what frustrates me so! People are more than willing to be prejudiced against Americans wearing "traditional Muslim garb", thinking that's the way terrorists look! That's been pounded into our heads and for people who don't think for themselves, they BOUGHT it! Shame on ANYONE who calls themselves a critical thinker, yet buys this crap. May I remind you all what the 9/11 hijackers looked like:

Would it have been better if Juan Williams said Middle Eastern Looking Men rather than "traditional Muslim garb" ? Don't know about you, but I tend to think of myself as a fairly rational thinker, yet I still eyeball people on flights and keep track of any Middle Eastern looking people. I'm not exactly proud of doing that, but I will continue to do so on flights.Does it make rational sense, no. Do I still do it? Yes. It's one of those chances that I'm not willing to take being oblivious to where a threat might come from.