Jason Calacanis Shows His (Horribly Bigoted) Stripes(jilliancyork.com)
jilliancyork.com
Jason Calacanis Shows His (Horribly Bigoted) Stripes
http://jilliancyork.com/2010/01/04/jason-calacanis-shows-his-horribly-bigoted-stripes/
4 comments
> he would declare that person to be ignorant.
...but not bigoted.
...but not bigoted.
He called them savages. How is that not bigoted?
"Are >>their<< intelligent people in the middle east? Sure, they are just not in charge, in jail or they’ve been murdered already."
Wow.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Maybe?
People should consider using proper grammar when insulting the intellectual abilities of others.
Wow.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Maybe?
People should consider using proper grammar when insulting the intellectual abilities of others.
[deleted]
For an interesting thought experiment, replace all references to the Arabs with Russians and see if you still think it's bigoted. Like this:
Are their intelligent people in Russia? Sure, they are just not in charge, in jail or they’ve been murdered already.
That's ignorant, of course, but I wouldn't call it bigoted and it would have probably passed without controversy. In fact I think accusations of bigotry say more about the accuser than the accusee.
And the fact is he's right. The absolute best thing for the ordinary arab people that the USA and all the other oil importers could do is immediately stop buying oil. And the unpleasant truth is that every dollar you spend at the petrol pump is indeed a vote in support of those despicable regimes.
I can't stand Calacanis but out of all these shrill voices, who is the one who has acted? And so who is the real friend to the people of the middle east?
Doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
Are their intelligent people in Russia? Sure, they are just not in charge, in jail or they’ve been murdered already.
That's ignorant, of course, but I wouldn't call it bigoted and it would have probably passed without controversy. In fact I think accusations of bigotry say more about the accuser than the accusee.
And the fact is he's right. The absolute best thing for the ordinary arab people that the USA and all the other oil importers could do is immediately stop buying oil. And the unpleasant truth is that every dollar you spend at the petrol pump is indeed a vote in support of those despicable regimes.
I can't stand Calacanis but out of all these shrill voices, who is the one who has acted? And so who is the real friend to the people of the middle east?
Doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
First, get your stats right. The biggest oil producer in the world is Saudi Arabia but the next Arab country is ranked at number 8. The US is third biggest. These are 2007 rankings; reference: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-pro... . Oil is not produced in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon. Jordan was singled out by Jason in his comment on the blog and the others tend to be considered naughty countries in various ways. For example, travellers with Syrian or Lebanese nationality are two of the 14 countries dictated by the TSA recently to require full pat-down checks when traveling.
Another thing: the US imports oil mostly from Canada and Mexico. In the top 15, I see only 4 Arab countries at rankings 3, 6, 8, and 14. Reference: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publicatio... . These are October 2009 numbers.
In short, oil being sold in the US being a vote to support despicable regimes in the Middle East is a stretch of the truth. Honestly, this is just what the mainstream thinking is, so I can't blame you for parrotting it.
Finally, I'd like to point out that your "replace with Russians" comment is still bigotry and it would not have passed without controversy.
Another thing: the US imports oil mostly from Canada and Mexico. In the top 15, I see only 4 Arab countries at rankings 3, 6, 8, and 14. Reference: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publicatio... . These are October 2009 numbers.
In short, oil being sold in the US being a vote to support despicable regimes in the Middle East is a stretch of the truth. Honestly, this is just what the mainstream thinking is, so I can't blame you for parrotting it.
Finally, I'd like to point out that your "replace with Russians" comment is still bigotry and it would not have passed without controversy.
Yes I'm probably on the same page. THis blogger seems to have been awaiting such a chance to lay into him.
With that said he certainly shows a lot of ignorance (mixed with some truths) but i think mostly it is just classic cultural superiority.
With that said he certainly shows a lot of ignorance (mixed with some truths) but i think mostly it is just classic cultural superiority.
This blogger barely paid attention to him until now. I had no idea he said those kinds of things, trust me.
The opening lines and the close to your TC comment sorta suggested otherwise to a reader.
"And the fact is he's right. The absolute best thing for the ordinary arab people that the USA and all the other oil importers could do is immediately stop buying oil. And the unpleasant truth is that every dollar you spend at the petrol pump is indeed a vote in support of those despicable regimes."
For the moment put countries in the Middle East aside and think about car companies during this recession. When people started buying fewer cars what did those companies do? They cut prices, offered better terms and did everything else they could to undercut their competitors.
Now go back to the Middle East. If you significantly reduce the wealth going into the region what will happen? You'll create a situation where they begin trying to take wealth from each other in a region where the two things they DO have in abundance are weapons and fuel. You'd end up completely destabilizing the region by causing massive warfare.
And before anyone says "But that will cause the populace to revolt" I urge you to look at the Iraq/Iran war which had a devastating amount of civilian casualties and which in the end strengthened both despotic regimes. When your home has been destroyed and most of your family has been killed you look to protect whats left not take on the government. The most successful violent revolution in history (American) was fought when the population was relatively wealthy
For the moment put countries in the Middle East aside and think about car companies during this recession. When people started buying fewer cars what did those companies do? They cut prices, offered better terms and did everything else they could to undercut their competitors.
Now go back to the Middle East. If you significantly reduce the wealth going into the region what will happen? You'll create a situation where they begin trying to take wealth from each other in a region where the two things they DO have in abundance are weapons and fuel. You'd end up completely destabilizing the region by causing massive warfare.
And before anyone says "But that will cause the populace to revolt" I urge you to look at the Iraq/Iran war which had a devastating amount of civilian casualties and which in the end strengthened both despotic regimes. When your home has been destroyed and most of your family has been killed you look to protect whats left not take on the government. The most successful violent revolution in history (American) was fought when the population was relatively wealthy
Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you reach the perverse notion that it's the USA's, and the rest of the world's, moral obligation to pump money into the region to prevent war. The oil is not even a factor, and will run out eventually anyway.
Isn't this imperialist thinking of the very worst type?
Like in all things I defer to the superior words of the masters:
"It is as you say, of course," Shoum said smoothly. "It is simply that, from a further perspective, one cannot but recognise that these very rules I allude to are set out so with precisely such an idea of justice at their core. We seek to be just to the peoples in our charge and those that we mentor by, usually, declining the always obvious option of facile intervention. One might intervene and interfere at every available opportunity and at every single instant when things did not turn out as any decent and reasonable creature would like. However, with every intervention, every interference - no matter how individually well-meant and seemingly right and proper judged purely on its own immediate merits - one would, subtly, incrementally but most certainly remove all freedom and dignity from the very people one sought only to help."
Isn't this imperialist thinking of the very worst type?
Like in all things I defer to the superior words of the masters:
"It is as you say, of course," Shoum said smoothly. "It is simply that, from a further perspective, one cannot but recognise that these very rules I allude to are set out so with precisely such an idea of justice at their core. We seek to be just to the peoples in our charge and those that we mentor by, usually, declining the always obvious option of facile intervention. One might intervene and interfere at every available opportunity and at every single instant when things did not turn out as any decent and reasonable creature would like. However, with every intervention, every interference - no matter how individually well-meant and seemingly right and proper judged purely on its own immediate merits - one would, subtly, incrementally but most certainly remove all freedom and dignity from the very people one sought only to help."
"Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you reach the perverse notion that it's the USA's, and the rest of the world's, moral obligation to pump money into the region to prevent war. The oil is not even a factor, and will run out eventually anyway."
If the world were black and white and the only choices were stop buying oil completely or continue the way we currently do things that would be true. But the world isn't like that.
Contrary to what Political Pundits might say our leaders really aren't idiots. For several decades now we've been pursuing alternate fuel sources (which should start to slowly reduce the amount of oil we purchase) while denouncing foreign oil use (which should subtlety undermine regimes that have no real plan beyond "make money off oil").
Again history provides the perfect model here. The U.S. won the cold war not by drastic actions but by slowly undermining the USSR's political system with political rhetoric while doing everything we could to create an economic environment that endorsed the ideals we hoped they would emulate
If the world were black and white and the only choices were stop buying oil completely or continue the way we currently do things that would be true. But the world isn't like that.
Contrary to what Political Pundits might say our leaders really aren't idiots. For several decades now we've been pursuing alternate fuel sources (which should start to slowly reduce the amount of oil we purchase) while denouncing foreign oil use (which should subtlety undermine regimes that have no real plan beyond "make money off oil").
Again history provides the perfect model here. The U.S. won the cold war not by drastic actions but by slowly undermining the USSR's political system with political rhetoric while doing everything we could to create an economic environment that endorsed the ideals we hoped they would emulate
Contrary to what Political Pundits might say our leaders really aren't idiots. For several decades now we've been pursuing alternate fuel sources [..] while denouncing foreign oil use [..]
Are you kidding? Our leaders have done no such thing and if they had, they really are idiots because they have been stunningly unsuccessful on both.
I don't think the USSR has much to teach us about the middle east, the situation is completely different. And the USSR was never a vassal state - indeed it's probably the only other country that could be considered an equal to the USA in recent history, along with China. So it's really quite an inappropriate comparison to make.
But I wonder if, long term, the USA really "won" in the first place. Remember "the only way to win is not to play". Well the Russians just decided not to play - or were unable to continue, at any rate. And whose blood is being spilled in Afghanistan these days?
Anyway, I wasn't intended to start a futile political argument, so let's agree to disagree : D
Are you kidding? Our leaders have done no such thing and if they had, they really are idiots because they have been stunningly unsuccessful on both.
I don't think the USSR has much to teach us about the middle east, the situation is completely different. And the USSR was never a vassal state - indeed it's probably the only other country that could be considered an equal to the USA in recent history, along with China. So it's really quite an inappropriate comparison to make.
But I wonder if, long term, the USA really "won" in the first place. Remember "the only way to win is not to play". Well the Russians just decided not to play - or were unable to continue, at any rate. And whose blood is being spilled in Afghanistan these days?
Anyway, I wasn't intended to start a futile political argument, so let's agree to disagree : D
[deleted]
Straw man. What if you turned it around to say, "Are there intelligent Black people in America? Sure, they are just not in charge in jail, or they've been murdered already."
Bigoted.
Americans don't Otherize Russians the way they do Arabs or Black people, because Russians are white. Totally different case.
The most despicable of the oil regimes is probably Saudi Arabia, which the United States supports whether you buy gas or not. Maybe you should consider lobbying your congressperson.
Bigoted.
Americans don't Otherize Russians the way they do Arabs or Black people, because Russians are white. Totally different case.
The most despicable of the oil regimes is probably Saudi Arabia, which the United States supports whether you buy gas or not. Maybe you should consider lobbying your congressperson.
> Bigoted.
Can you explain why you feel the comment is specifically bigoted; and who too?
If he is referring to certain extreme societies it is probably a correct comment (and equally applicable to other countries too). He is, perhaps, confusing radicalized leadership with a lack of intelligence.
As a whole that entire section of text was verging on bigoted (though I can understand people feeling angry about the treatment of women/homosexuals etc. in the region) but I felt it was more misguided and angry than malicious.
If your reading it as "Arab people are stupid" I think your misreading (or deliberately looking for it).
Can you explain why you feel the comment is specifically bigoted; and who too?
If he is referring to certain extreme societies it is probably a correct comment (and equally applicable to other countries too). He is, perhaps, confusing radicalized leadership with a lack of intelligence.
As a whole that entire section of text was verging on bigoted (though I can understand people feeling angry about the treatment of women/homosexuals etc. in the region) but I felt it was more misguided and angry than malicious.
If your reading it as "Arab people are stupid" I think your misreading (or deliberately looking for it).
I'm sure that if some farmer somewhere said that American entrepreneurs were all lazy hipsters looking to scam venture capital and live like kings while jerking off with technology toys all day he would declare that person to be ignorant. Yet somehow he thinks that he is qualified to declare what middle east policy should be.