|
March 28, 2010
I demand to see the AP's list of invisible and inaudible "tea party activists"!
Noting the difficulty inherent in proving that something did not happen, Dave quotes an AP piece which criticizes Andrew Breitbart for not providing evidence to rebut the claim that racial epithets were shouted by Tea Party activists: Conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart disputed accounts that tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets at black members of Congress amid the health care debate, although he didn't provide any evidence.Of course, if you do provide evidence, as Eric Erickson did when he said that the videos showed no racial epithets, you will be accused of lying. "John King Lets Erick Erickson Tell Latest Right Wing Lie on Racial Slurs: They Didn't Happen." The logic is utterly impenetrable. Saying something happened without proof makes it true, while denying it and offering proof is a "right wing lie." Notice also how the allegation has changed. It has evolved from unknown persons who shouted in a crowd to "tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets." Yet no one -- not even the accusers -- have come up with the slightest proof that anyone there shouted a racial epithet. As it has not been shown that a single person used a single racial epithet, how can it be claimed that "racial epithets" were shouted by "tea party activists"? Because the AP says so? What I'd like to know is how does the Associated Press know about these tea party activists, and why aren't they identifying them? Who are they, and where are they? Do they have a list of imaginary names like Joe McCarthy? Why won't the AP let the rest of us in on their game? Because, if in fact there are invisible tea party activists that no one can see, who do not appear on any videos, but who nonetheless managed to shout racial epithets that no one can hear, they are obviously very powerful, very sinister people who have great magical powers -- powers they are clearly misusing to harm the Tea Party movement. The Tea Partiers should demand that the AP identify them so something can be done to stop them. I'm glad Andrew Breitbart is offering a $10,000 reward. posted by Eric on 03.28.10 at 06:37 PM
Comments
I'm pretty damn skeptical of Lewis myself, AemJeff. These clowns were going through the crowd, with their own people filming what occured. If they'd had anyone - ANYONE - say anything untoward, it would have been up on prime time news. Of course, absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but with the sheer number of cameras in hand on BOTH sides, don't you think someone would have claimed Breitbart's reward by now if there HAD been slurs like Lewis claimed? JLawson · March 29, 2010 01:15 AM Brietbart has upped the offer to $100,000. M. Simon · March 29, 2010 03:05 AM If Lewis is lying (as many say he is), or if he's hyperimaginative and suggestible and thought he heard the N-word, what he says is rhetorically bulletproof by virtue of his being a civil rights icon. A white person who calls him a liar would be accused of racism, and a black person who calls him a liar would be accused of being a traitor. Of course, none of this should come as a surprise. If opposition to health care reform is racism, then any disagreement on anything is. Eric Scheie · March 29, 2010 11:46 AM JLawson, that's facile. Just as you said "absence of proof isn't proof of absence." Lewis does have some innate credibility - I think he earned that fair and square on Bloody Sunday in 1965. If you can show that he's a liar - that is, if you have something better than Breitbart's unproven allegations, then that's different. But hiding behind the "everything's racism when we say it" trope doesn't get you very far in this case, in my opinion. AemJeff · March 29, 2010 12:03 PM They aren't Breitbart's unproven allegations, they are Lewis'. I find it pretty funny that someone saying, "Prove your assertions" is the one who has to supply the proof of a negative. Veeshir · March 29, 2010 02:34 PM AemJeff, maybe the latest meme will be is that the Dems are too pure to soil themselves with Breitbart's money, and they're not going to release the video they have because thy're tracking the perpetrators and don't want them to have a chance to hide. But face it - if there had been ANY video with a slur on it, those race-baiting poverty pimps (Oh, was that racist? Sorry...) would have left a hole in the air getting it to the media. They said it happened - they need to prove it. JLawson · March 29, 2010 08:11 PM Cool! A self-refuting post! AemJeff · March 29, 2010 11:27 PM Jeff, I see you have no proof of Lewis' assertions either. "Because I say so" is not good enough for such a serious (in today's America) charge. M. Simon · March 30, 2010 12:29 AM Actually Simon, I never claimed to offer proof. I did claim that Lewis has earned stature such that merely calling him a liar is insufficient; and I've said that Breitbart seems pretty convincingly discredited. AemJeff · March 30, 2010 09:08 AM See AemJeff, nobody's calling him a liar, we want to see proof of his assertion. Veeshir · March 30, 2010 11:44 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Under The Spreading Chestnut Tree
A heartfelt plea -- from one Yuengling fan to another! Going Galt with Rolls Royce Rice! "Humane liberalism" that makes Vladimir Putin look kind The final abolition of charity Senate Operations I demand to see the AP's list of invisible and inaudible "tea party activists"! Local news that's not local news yet? Left out of the framing Emmanuel Speaks
Links
Site Credits
|
|
C'man Eric. It's Breitbart who made the claim that he had "proof." Whose fault is that? And if he's going to claim that John Lewis, of all people, is a liar - at the very least, you'd think he ought to have a basic understanding of the meaning of the verb "to prove." Breitbart seems to discredit himself every time he speaks, lately. And I'd generally hope that smart guys like you were a little more skeptical of bad arguments like that.