Thursday, July 31, 2003

To judge by the "comments" box in one of my recent entries, the controversy continues about paleoconservative racism.

If your appetite has been piqued, you can see some paleo minds wrestle with this question by visiting a forum thread devoted to this latest brouhaha. Among the gems you'll find there (along with plenty of "what's the big deal?" comments regarding the Holocaust) is this perplexed observation:
I'm still trying to figure out how calling the former Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee "Jew Lieberman" is demeaning.
And the similarly perplexed response:
There's nothing about "Jew Lieberman" that's in the slightest sense demeaning. It's just considered rude to point out that someone is a Jew, unless you're praising them. Space is at a premium on your front page, requiring an economy of words. "Jew Lieberman" gets the essential points across a lot faster than "Joseph Lieberman, Democratic candidate for president, and proud person of Jewish descent".
You see, it's actually just a helpful shorthand. For the millions of paleconservative readers who weren't aware that Joe Lieberman is Jewish, we'll call him "Jew Lieberman" in a merely objective attempt to impart information.

These guys are entertaining, you have to give them that. I would only ask that if you happen to own a Ryder truck rental shop and these guys come in for a rental, make sure you get a big deposit. Because the truck ain't comin' back in one piece.

No comments: