In the Kilmeade case, all that was needed was a and a what a doofus! Even a "What was he thinking? What a dumb thing to say!" Instead, it is defended and then they go on the attack. I even think it's fair to condemn the act, but defend the institution and the speaker. We all say dumb things occassionally.
Simultaneously, what Kilmeade did was a show of ignorance and very probably a show of prejudice, but not really an act of hate. Acts of hate like the one above, acts of violence like we have begun to see more often deserve unfettered condemnation. They deserve our attention.
If it turns out we are wrong, then that condemnation turns on the con artist and honestly, it gets doubled. Because any ___________ who pulls out a swaztika to score political points deserves no sympathy. I said the exact same thing when people called Bush and Cheney Hitler. It's inexcusable and needs to be condemned. That diminishes the reality of what Hitler did and softening reality allows for one to dismiss it and a new one to rise.
If the act of hate seems to come from within your "group" you should condemn it even more strongly because you should not allow or accept it within your group. It should not be welcomed in your tent. It should find welcome nowhere.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)