Laughable ‘Reverse Racism’ Wingnut Argument of the Day
There’s so much craziness today in the right wing blogosphere that I’ve just been marveling at it while I drink coffee. One jaw-dropping post after another. Where to start?
OK, this is probably the most ludicrous of the bunch: Islamophobia, Too, at Media Matters.
Yes, mini-Breitbart Joel Pollak is now accusing Media Matters of being the real Islamophobes.
The background on this risible article: Dana Loesch recently recycled the years-old, long-debunked right wing smear that as a child in Indonesia, President Obama attended a “madrassa.” Media Matters called her on it.
Now Pollak is floating the ridiculous argument that Loesch was only pointing out that Obama attended a Muslim school. No smearing at all. Snort.
Media Matters hack Chelsea Rudman points out that “the American media have most commonly applied the word to schools that sprang up in South Asia after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and engage in anti-Western “political indoctrination.” And she fails, pointedly, to even hint that Loesch shares that view. In fact, her article inadvertently shows that Loesch believes the opposite.
In hyping the use of “madrassa” as some sort of smear in itself, Media Matters is, in fact, reinforcing an Islamophobic sterotype.
Rudman takes Loesch to task for pointing out the differences between the Quran and the New Testament—also correctly—as if noting those differences in the texts were, itself, off limits. Apparently, for Media Matters, there are some truths that the American people cannot handle—will it suggest banning the Quran as a remedy?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a hilariously twisted example of the wingnut “reverse racism” argument, except possibly the last time Dana Loesch falsely accused me of using a “racist slur.”
With right wing pretzel logic, Pollak is using the same sort of idiotic sophistry as Loesch, trying to claim that pointing out Dana Loesch’s Islamophobic smear is itself an example of an Islamophobic smear. Really, that’s the whole argument — there’s nothing more to it.
It’s childish, and I don’t mean that as an ad hominem. This is literally how children argue.
By the way, as for Pollak’s claim that Dana Loesch’s “madrassas” comment was not at all bigoted, here’s what Loesch wrote on her blog, in September 2010:
Obama says that “As Americans, we will not or ever be at war with Islam.”
How many thousands of people must be murdered by Islam before he stops saying such?
Where did this nation’s balls go?