Juan williams fired from NPR

[Mycroft]

2. I've always thought of Juan as a very intelligent and thoughtful person. He seemed to have a great insight into situations. He should know that, in times like this, we do not make such public statments even if they are true. I don't care if he was only saying that it makes him nervous. He should know that this would arouse anger and bad reaction. It should never have been said so publicly.

Why not?

His job is to be a commentator, to give voice to the opinions that many people feel. Why shouldn't he give voice to this particular viewpoint?

Isn't the best way to deal with fear to bring it out in the open to discuss it and examine it? If people who have an irrational fear of Muslims are not allowed to admit it, then the opportunity never arises to where someone else can point out that the majority of Muslims are not people to be afraid of, and that they're more likely to be targets of violence themselves.

Isn't that the ideal? That open discussion is a good thing?

 

[TraneWreck]

It was probably an overreaction to fire him, though his statements were really, really stupid. He was doing more than just identifying a reaction, he was justifying it. Remember, he started by saying O'Reilly was "right" to identify Islam with terrorism.

Greenwald got it right:

I'm still not quite over the most disgusting part of the Juan Williams spectacle yesterday: watching the very same people (on the Right and in the media) who remained silent about or vocally cheered on the viewpoint-based firings of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, Chas Freeman, Van Jones and so many others, spend all day yesterday wrapping themselves in the flag of "free expression!!!" and screeching about the perils and evils of firing journalists for expressing certain viewpoints.

Even for someone who expects huge doses of principle-free hypocrisy -- as I do -- that behavior is really something to behold. And anyone doubting that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Muslim speech should just compare the wailing backlash from most quarters over Williams' firing to the muted acquiescence or widespread approval of those other firings.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/22/muslims

I'd rather he hadn't been fired for that, but let's not suffer this hissy fit from the right.

 

[Hazel]

Why not?

His job is to be a commentator, to give voice to the opinions that many people feel. Why shouldn't he give voice to this particular viewpoint?

Isn't the best way to deal with fear to bring it out in the open to discuss it and examine it? If people who have an irrational fear of Muslims are not allowed to admit it, then the opportunity never arises to where someone else can point out that the majority of Muslims are not people to be afraid of, and that they're more likely to be targets of violence themselves.

Isn't that the ideal? That open discussion is a good thing?

I understand what you are saying and my inclinition is to agree. However, if I have received correct information, he was doing something that his employer had asked him not to do. That in itself creates a problem for him. If he wanted to feel free to say anything he wanted and if NPR asked him to tone it down or cease and desist, he should have either done as asked or resigned and gone elsewhere.

That first. But, I still think such comments are inflammatory in this day. There is too much danger around us form hot-heads. We need a few cool heads to lower the temperature.

 

[marplots]

It just occurred to me that "Muslim" is the new "Commie". Before you get all up in my case, I do know that all communists aren't out for the overthrow of democracy by violent means, I was only thinking about the radical terrorist communists who dress funny in coffee bars.

Maybe it's all a symptom of not being able to hate or fear gays anymore. It just wells up somewhere else.

 

[Ziggurat]

It was probably an overreaction to fire him, though his statements were really, really stupid. He was doing more than just identifying a reaction, he was justifying it. Remember, he started by saying O'Reilly was "right" to identify Islam with terrorism.

Are you saying Islam shouldn't be identified in any way with terrorism? That'll be news to bin Laden.

And if you're not saying that, then you're basically blaming Williams for telling the truth. Even if you want to defend the notion of firing people for the content of their speech, is that really the standard you want to establish for what speech constitutes a firing offense?

 

[TraneWreck]

Are you saying Islam shouldn't be identified in any way with terrorism? That'll be news to bin Laden.

And if you're not saying that, then you're basically blaming Williams for telling the truth. Even if you want to defend the notion of firing people for the content of their speech, is that really the standard you want to establish for what speech constitutes a firing offense?

Remember the context. This was a discussion about O'Reilly's bigot-fest on the view about the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero.

At risk of going over it all again, there was no non-bigoted reason to oppose building of a Community Center by a moderate leader who worked on counter-terrorism projects with the FBI and traveled to the Middle East for the State Department to combat radical Islam.

O'Reilly argued that it hurt people's feelings because "Muslims" did 9-11.

So yes, in that context I'm saying it's insulting, ignorant, bigoted, and foolish to associate "Islam" with "9-11." By defending this stance, Williams was engaging in ignorant bigotry. He was offering support for O'Reilly's *********.

 

[Ziggurat]

Remember the context. This was a discussion about O'Reilly's bigot-fest on the view about the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero.

I remember the context quite well. And in context, Williams made it very explicit that he didn't think most Muslims were any sort of threat.

So yes, in that context I'm saying it's insulting, ignorant, bigoted, and foolish to associate "Islam" with "9-11."

Except that the perpetrators did it in the name of Islam. THEY made the association. To deny the association is not any form of enlightenment, it is not any form of open-mindedness, it is not any form of good will, it is not any form of deeper understanding. It is a denial of reality. Now, you can add whatever disclaimers you want to the statement that Islam is associated with 9/11, but the association exists. Because the perpetrators created it, and they did so deliberately.

By defending this stance, Williams was engaging in ignorant bigotry. He was offering support for O'Reilly's *********.

You are offended that O'Reilly spoke the truth, and that Williams defended him for speaking the truth, despite the fact that Williams also criticized O'Reilly for not being explicit enough about the fact that most Muslims aren't violent.

 

[TraneWreck]

I remember the context quite well. And in context, Williams made it very explicit that he didn't think most Muslims were any sort of threat.

Like I say, it was a stupid thing to say, but he shouldn't have been fired.

Except that the perpetrators did it in the name of Islam. THEY made the association. To deny the association is not any form of enlightenment, it is not any form of open-mindedness, it is not any form of good will, it is not any form of deeper understanding. It is a denial of reality. Now, you can add whatever disclaimers you want to the statement that Islam is associated with 9/11, but the association exists. Because the perpetrators created it, and they did so deliberately.

Dr. Tiller was shot in the name of Christianity. I guess I can conclude that the old women that make pies at my Grandma's church support the assassinations of health care providers.

Everytime I see a cross, I get a little weak-kneed.

You are offended that O'Reilly spoke the truth, and that Williams defended him for speaking the truth, despite the fact that Williams also criticized O'Reilly for not being explicit enough about the fact that most Muslims aren't violent.

No he didn't. He spoke in vengeful ignorance. Only bigoted reasons exist to oppose that Community Center. O'Reilly voiced bigoted opposition, Williams defended him. They're idiots.

 

[NoScotsman]

99.9% of Muslims are moderate and mainstream... the only exceptions are the governments/people of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakiststan ... who for 20 years haven't quite gotten around to turning over Osama Bin Laden.

...and Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was just a lone wolf... it's not like he's received a ticker-tape parade for his deeds. And certainly no one lionizes Palestinian terrorists... or cheers in the streets after 3,000 Americans are killed...

 

[Ziggurat]

Dr. Tiller was shot in the name of Christianity.

Yes, he did. Christianity is related to violence against abortion providers. That is true, and I have no problem with you or anyone else stating it.

I guess I can conclude that the old women that make pies at my Grandma's church support the assassinations of health care providers.

This doesn't resemble anything that Williams said. In fact, what he said rather explicitly refutes the logic you're using here.

Everytime I see a cross, I get a little weak-kneed.

I have no problem with you saying that. I'll think you're a wimp, but Williams wasn't fired for being a wimp.

No he didn't. He spoke in vengeful ignorance. Only bigoted reasons exist to oppose that Community Center. O'Reilly voiced bigoted opposition, Williams defended him. They're idiots.

Williams didn't defend O'Reilly's opposition to the community center, he defended his claim that Islam was related to terrorism. You have claimed otherwise, but are now not even bothering to defend your own claim.

 

[marplots]

(extracted from longer post)...

Williams didn't defend O'Reilly's opposition to the community center, he defended his claim that Islam was related to terrorism....

I think that's were the nuance and argument lies. Could you explain what you mean by "related to" in that?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that's were the nuance and argument lies. Could you explain what you mean by "related to" in that?

Well, the statement that O'Reilly made on The View that caused the walkout was not his opposition to the mosque, it was his statement that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. And that statement is true, and Williams defended it. Moreover, the fact that it was Muslims was not incidental to the attack (their hair color, on the other hand, is), but was a central part of their motivation. They attacked us because of their Islamic beliefs. Islam is related to terrorism because it provides a central motivating ideology for many terrorists to use terrorism. That is what the terrorists keep telling us (and each other, and other Muslims), and it is foolish to deny or ignore this reality.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, he did. Christianity is related to violence against abortion providers. That is true, and I have no problem with you or anyone else stating it.

Well, that's pretty silly. I say that as an unapologetic atheist.

Some Christians are violent. Some Christians supported segregation, some Christians opposed segregations, both sides USED Christianity as the reason for their position.

If the only knowledge I had of a person living in Mobile, Alabama, in 1965 was that they were a Christian, I would know nothing.

Same is true of all religious designations.

This doesn't resemble anything that Williams said. In fact, what he said rather explicitly refutes the logic you're using here.

[...]

Williams didn't defend O'Reilly's opposition to the community center, he defended his claim that Islam was related to terrorism. You have claimed otherwise, but are now not even bothering to defend your own claim.

People are focusing on the wrong portion of Williams' statement.

O'Reilly began the segment by expressing the same argument he used on the View, namely that "there is a Muslim problem in the world," then asked Williams if he agreed. Williams said:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/19/williams-oreilly-muslims/

Then he goes on to say that this is why we should be afraid of people who self-identify as Muslim.

That's stupid bigotry. He has defended his stance, like you have, by saying this is "reality." It is not.

Many more Christians in the US army have killed muslims over the past few decades than Muslims have killed Christians, does that mean the world has a "Christian" problem?

 

[TraneWreck]

Well, the statement that O'Reilly made on The View that caused the walkout was not his opposition to the mosque, it was his statement that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. And that statement is true, and Williams defended it. Moreover, the fact that it was Muslims was not incidental to the attack (their hair color, on the other hand, is), but was a central part of their motivation. They attacked us because of their Islamic beliefs. Islam is related to terrorism because it provides a central motivating ideology for many terrorists to use terrorism. That is what the terrorists keep telling us (and each other, and other Muslims), and it is foolish to deny or ignore this reality.

Right, it is true that they were muslim, and it is also true that this fact was not irrelevant to their behavior.

What's wrong is associating, as O'Reilly did, a moderate muslim who worked with the FBI and State Department on counter terrorism and against radical Islam with the 9-11 terrorists. There is no way to oppose that Community Center without so doing.

O'Reilly was once again expressing this generalization, defending his argument on the View, when he asked Williams where he had "gone wrong." Williams agreed with him. Two bigots.

 

[GreNME]

No, you didn't.

Oooh! I know this game! Here: yes, I did.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

I think I'll go with "foolhardy".

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, that's pretty silly. I say that as an unapologetic atheist.

What's silly about it? It's true. You haven't actually denied that it's true. You've come up with reasons why you don't consider it important, but that's a different matter than not being true.

People are focusing on the wrong portion of Williams' statement.

O'Reilly began the segment by expressing the same argument he used on the View, namely that "there is a Muslim problem in the world,"

One would think that if O'Reilly is really so wrong, you'd start here in your refutation of his position. But this claim has gone unaddressed by you.

then asked Williams if he agreed. Williams said:


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/19/williams-oreilly-muslims/

Then he goes on to say that this is why we should be afraid of people who self-identify as Muslim.

No he didn't. He said he was nervous (in certain contexts) around such people. He did not claim that we should be afraid of people who self-identify as Muslims.

That's stupid bigotry. He has defended his stance, like you have, by saying this is "reality." It is not.

You have attacked his stance by claiming he said something he did not say.

Many more Christians in the US army have killed muslims over the past few decades than Muslims have killed Christians, does that mean the world has a "Christian" problem?

Do you think that the US military's actions are both detrimental to the world and motivated by Christianity? I don't, but if you do, go ahead and explain why.

Do you think Al Qaeda's terrorism is both detrimental to the world and motivated by Islam? I do, but if you don't, go ahead and explain why.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, it is true that they were muslim, and it is also true that this fact was not irrelevant to their behavior.

What's wrong is associating, as O'Reilly did, a moderate muslim who worked with the FBI and State Department on counter terrorism and against radical Islam with the 9-11 terrorists. There is no way to oppose that Community Center without so doing.

Once again: O'Reilly's opposition to the mosque isn't what earned him a walk-out, and that isn't what Williams was defending.

 

[TraneWreck]

What's silly about it? It's true. You haven't actually denied that it's true. You've come up with reasons why you don't consider it important, but that's a different matter than not being true.

So it's true that "Christians" like to kill abortion doctors? Really?

One would think that if O'Reilly is really so wrong, you'd start here in your refutation of his position. But this claim has gone unaddressed by you.

What do you want me to refute? That there's a "muslim" problem in the world?

What percentage of the more than billion muslims on the planet are terrorists?

No he didn't. He said he was nervous (in certain contexts) around such people. He did not claim that we should be afraid of people who self-identify as Muslims.

You have attacked his stance by claiming he said something he did not say.

It's right there in the quote above. He says it's "reality."

Do you think that the US military's actions are both detrimental to the world and motivated by Christianity? I don't, but if you do, go ahead and explain why.

"Detrimental to the world" is such an insanely vague criteria that there's no possible way to answer.

Our wars are unnecessary, ineffective, and highly detrimental to ourselves. I think the vast majority of our troops are Christian and a great many of them think they're fighting a holy war over there.

If we use O'Reilly logic: the fact that there exist some US troops who think they're fighting a holy war in the name of Christianity makes it so that all members of the US army who are Christian must be suspected of fight a holy war in the name of Christianity. Because the vast majority of US forces are Christian, this means that all Iraqis and Afghanis should behave as though every AMerican soldier they meet wants to wipe their religion off the face of the Earth.

How'd I do?

Do you think Al Qaeda's terrorism is both detrimental to the world and motivated by Islam? I do, but if you don't, go ahead and explain why.

Sure, but now you've shifted from "muslims" to "Al Qaeda." A none too subtle action that gives us little to work with.

 

[TraneWreck]

Once again: O'Reilly's opposition to the mosque isn't what earned him a walk-out, and that isn't what Williams was defending.

Sure seemed that way to me:



"Cause they killed us on 9-11."

Associating ALL muslims with the 9-11 hijackers is bigoted.

The Community Center was built by a moderate leader who worked with the FBI and State Department on counter-terrorism issues. It is insulting beyond words to oppose his right to build a Community Center because people of the same broad religious group committed a terrorist act.

O'Reilly was voicing the same "muslims are dangerous" view before Williams stuck his foot in his mouth.

 

[dirtywick]

So it's true that "Christians" like to kill abortion doctors? Really?

I don't know that they necessarily like it.