DescentBB

Comments say it all:

"During a discussion on the Dallas Police headquarters shooting this afternoon, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield appears to have really misspoken in referring to the gunman’s actions as “courageous and brave.”

“It was very courageous and brave, if not crazy as well, to open fire on the police headquarters, and now you have this scene, this standoff. So you believe these are the hallmarks of more than one person’s involvement.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-r ... and-brave/

I'm amazed they didn't go all out 'this must be a gun toting conservative Tea-Party wacko.' That would at least fall more in line with their usual characterization of non-black anti-police violence.

I like the term “misspoken”…read my sig.

Are you suggesting that this is the liberal point of view in regards to what happened in Dallas?

That's essentially the same thing Bill Maher said after 9/11. The network dumped his show, but he never walked it back either. But saying something stupid is not just a "liberal thing". Here's a couple of whoppers from conservatives.

Republican Senate candidate Richard Murdock spouted this gem:

Richard Murdock wrote:“I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,”

Another Republican Senate candidate, Tod Akin blew it when he stated this as fact:

Todd Akin wrote:“.....if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

I can go on and on and on........

Rush Limbaugh wrote:“The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.”

Ann Coulter wrote:“We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.”

Glenn Beck wrote:“When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.”

George W Bush wrote:“I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.”

George W Bush wrote:“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

George W Bush wrote:“This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating.”

Ronald Reagan wrote:“Facts are stupid things.”

the only difference, TC, seems to be that the 'liberals' apologize after saying stupid stuff. Whitfield apologized today for misspeaking. Yes, Spidey, that is a lame defense, but at least she gets that what she said was dumb.


That said, I haven't a clue whether Frederika Whitfield is liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian or whatever. Kudos for Woody, because he apparently got the secret handshake clueing him in.

I don't remember Bill Maher apologizing, but that happened a long time ago.

tunnelcat wrote:I don't remember Bill Maher apologizing, but that happened a long time ago.

his bosses did, though.

I don't see what the commenter being "liberal" has to do with anything. (other than hippie punching, of course) Is perceiving the supposed courage of a perp really a "liberal" thing? I checked my liberal handbook but didn't see anything about it.

Vander wrote:Is perceiving the supposed courage of a perp really a "liberal" thing?

Yea, it just might be, I make that call based on the debate we had comparing the bravery of American military tactics vs. terrorists tactics.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I don't remember Bill Maher apologizing, but that happened a long time ago.

his bosses did, though.

His bosses don't count. Also don't remember Bill Clinton apologizing about not having sex with Lewinski.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I don't remember Bill Maher apologizing, but that happened a long time ago.

his bosses did, though.

His bosses don't count. Also don't remember Bill Clinton apologizing about not having sex with Lewinski.

what does that have to do with saying things at all? Now, you've coupled the doing the same thing Lothar complained about(villanizilng a whole group of your fellow citizens in the initial post) with utter confusion about what you're whining about in the first place. Agenda there, Woody? Nahhhhhhh.

Spidey wrote:Yea, it just might be, I make that call based on the debate we had comparing the bravery of American military tactics vs. terrorists tactics.

I don't think I was around for that discussion. It seems to me that such perception of courage is a result of empathy. Empathy is such a basic tool for analyzing reality that I would have a hard time claiming it as a virtue held only by liberals. Perhaps that's projection on my part, and I'm giving conservatives too much credit?

Sure empathy is great, but one has the choice of which side one chooses to have empathy for. In other words I would empathize with the cops in this example, not the “shooter”.

It’s been my experience in general over the years that liberals seem to have a more romantic view of the “bad guys” and underdogs than conservatives, and that seems to be where the empathy goes.

Yea dude, we all have empathy, unless you are a psychopath.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I don't remember Bill Maher apologizing, but that happened a long time ago.

his bosses did, though.

But he didn't "personally" apologize, and frankly, I don't think he should have even tried to apologize, nor should he have lost his job over it either. I'll bet if he made that same exact statement today, he wouldn't have lost his show or been fired. In fact, I'll wager that if he said that exact statement today in reference to what Obama is doing in the Middle East with drones, he'd become a conservative hero. It's all about "context".

Bill Maher wrote:“We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly,” Maher said according to transcripts (video below). “Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly....”

Remember this little canard, back during the Iraq War, when President Bush could do no wrong, and conservatives went after anyone who questioned their president's patriotism and actions? As it turns out, we should have been questioning the actions of our president back then. But only a few had the guts to do it. They were viciously censured and vilified and paid for it dearly too.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... icks.reut/

Spidey wrote:Sure empathy is great, but one has the choice of which side one chooses to have empathy for. In other words I would empathize with the cops in this example, not the “shooter”.

It’s been my experience in general over the years that liberals seem to have a more romantic view of the “bad guys” and underdogs than conservatives, and that seems to be where the empathy goes.

Yea dude, we all have empathy, unless you are a psychopath.

ever occur to you(and others) that she simply got caught up in her words? Hell, she's just a talking head, a la Shep Smith at Faux News, who can trip over his lines hilariously at times. Doesn't make him some bad guy. Hell, it doesn't even mean he's 'conservative', just because Fox pays his wages. They are just reading copy, and I suspect this was just a garbled blunder. You are reading WAY too much into the words.

Yea, that was the quote that basically started the debate I was referring to. (Bill Maher)

I feel compelled to say it again:

Killing innocent people, and thinking you will be rewarded in the afterlife is not a courageous act, doing something and living to pay the consequences…that takes bravery.

Note the difference between my perspective and Bill’s.

.........................

You could be right slick, I was simply replying to Vander.

I, too, missed the debate about military tactics v terrorist tactics.

Spidey wrote:Yea, that was the quote that basically started the debate I was referring to. (Bill Maher)

I feel compelled to say it again:

Killing innocent people, and thinking you will be rewarded in the afterlife is not a courageous act, doing something and living to pay the consequences…that takes bravery.

Note the difference between my perspective and Bill’s.

I repeat, NOWHERE did Maher say the words "brave" or "bravery" or "courageous" during his controversial comment. All he did was call those terrorists "not cowardly". That does not by any definition call them courageous or brave.

good job picking up the nuance in the English language, TC. Beat me to that comment.

True…those were my words, and used in the larger context.

.........................................

JFTR my using the term coward to describe someone who kills innocent people is my personal opinion, and probably doesn’t meet the strict definition. (It’s an insult)

So the question becomes…

Why the hell would someone feel the need to defend a terrorist from an insult, and in the process also feel the need to impugn people who are doing their job instead.

I mean if you are just correcting someone’s technical mistake, why the need to go further.

All technicalities aside, that is the actual issue here.

Is Bill empathizing with terrorists?

Spidey wrote:Sure empathy is great, but one has the choice of which side one chooses to have empathy for. In other words I would empathize with the cops in this example, not the “shooter”.

To me, this is backwards. Perhaps you meant sympathy? Empathizing with all sides is a necessity of good reporting, and informs a more accurate perspective of reality.

Vander wrote:

Spidey wrote:Sure empathy is great, but one has the choice of which side one chooses to have empathy for. In other words I would empathize with the cops in this example, not the “shooter”.

To me, this is backwards. Perhaps you meant sympathy? Empathizing with all sides is a necessity of good reporting, and informs a more accurate perspective of reality.

So Vander the reporter should empathize with the pedophile that sexually assaults a nine year old, video tapes his acts and then kills the kid? If so I really would not want to live in your reality.

I’m using empathy in this case to mean putting oneself in someone else’s shoes.

Therefore from the cop’s position, I see being attacked, and treated as the enemy.

Putting myself in the shooters position, I can’t really get a read, because this is simply behavior that I consider unacceptable.

That is me personally, I can’t really speak to the reporter, but if the job requires me to empathize with criminals, then I probably wouldn’t do it. (the job)

Perhaps she was reading from a prepared script and realized her mistake soon afterwards?

woodchip wrote:So Vander the reporter should empathize with the pedophile that sexually assaults a nine year old, video tapes his acts and then kills the kid?

Meh, the "neurology of morality" is getting more complicated as we learn how the brain works. In the case of the shooter, he was clearly perceiving the world in an unhealthy way, but why his perceptions were this way is a complicated matter.

woodchip wrote:So Vander the reporter should empathize with the pedophile that sexually assaults a nine year old, video tapes his acts and then kills the kid?

Your example is extreme and hard to defend against, but yes. Trying to understand what has driven someone to do such an act has more value than simply reporting the act, does it not? Granted, in your example, you're probably not going to learn much of value. But think of other examples. One sided empathy produces reporting that lacks the veracity of a fuller picture. Isn't better understanding a good thing?

Spidey wrote:Why the hell would someone feel the need to defend a terrorist from an insult

I think it was a defense of an alternate view of the situation rather than a defense of a terrorist.

Spidey wrote:Putting myself in the shooters position, I can’t really get a read, because this is simply behavior that I consider unacceptable.

Honestly, I've paid little to no attention to this story. I basically know nothing about his real motivations. But from what I've seen that has occurred, I can perceive a certain level of courage necessary to perpetrate such an act. Is that a compliment? Or is it simply a statement that he possessed the will to place himself in danger for whatever reason? Can't it simply be a single piece that needs the rest of the puzzle to be understood? Identifying that it might take courage to act as he did is in no way saying he wasn't wrong and an ★■◆● that deserved to be gunned down for his abhorrent actions. What if he had done this at the local ISIS precinct in Iraq? Would he have then been courageous?

I couldn't care less about this CNN anchor. I didn't see it, so I don't know what the coverage was like. My guess is it was typical anchor rambling during "events" like this, struggling to fill audio by describing the video WE'RE BOTH WATCHING. I don't know if what she is quoted as saying is what she was meaning to say.

My concern, or perhaps wonder is a better word, is why expressing an unpopular or narratively inconvenient but valid concept is bad? Why would that be a "liberal" thing to be condemned for, rather than a liberal and conservative thing to be celebrated?

People are weird.

Well quite honestly, I really don’t believe she was empathizing with the shooter, but just doing a more mundane thing called editorializing, and is now getting more credit than she deserves.

And that for sure...is not a liberal thing. (editorializing)

I still contend that she was likely reading copy off a prompter and got balled up in the words.