“Reverse” Discrimination: How Fox News Enables the Undereducated to Destroy Logic, Language, and Rationale Thought, Part 7

Fox News is the source of many ills. One of the most irritating/horrifying result of FN’s existence is “reverse” argument. You may know it as the ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ zinger/comeback from our youth.  Effectively, any un- or undereducated bigot now has, at least to their tin ear, a “smart” sounding “argument” to explain/justify/deny/deflect attention away from their bigotry.

I experienced this reality-challenging argument back when California’s Prop 8 was sparking discussions on gay rights on many mainstream fora. One, apparently, was the (utterly unwatchable) View. From what I understand, Ms. Goldberg and Ms. Hasselbeck got into a discussion on the matter. Someone I Know was all aflame with the unrighteous indignation and engaged me in the following conversation:

SIK: It’s just WRONG.

Me: What is just wrong?

SIK: How the LIBERALS are always insisting that people need to be tolerant, but then THEY [i.e., the LIBERALS] are the most intolerant people I know. On national TV, even!

Me: What on earth are you talking about?

SIK: You know, Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopie and Janeane Garafalo. Hypocrites.  They [the LIBERALS] tell us we have to be tolerant of them [by ‘them,’ this person meant The Gays on this particular occasion], but they aren’t tolerant of us.  You know, I don’t care if someone is gay, but I don’t want it shoved in my face all the time. I don’t want to know about it and I don’t like being told that I HAVE to give the gay lifestyle my approval or I am being intolerant. And if someone thinks that homosexuality is wrong, they have a right to talk about it. But when they do, They [again, the LIBERALS] say all sorts of nasty things. THEY are the ones being intolerant.

Me: Ummm…so, because someone advocates for tolerance, they must tolerate intolerance or they are hypocrites?  I don’t get it.

SIK: Yes- exactly.

And there you have the “reverse” argument.  Essentially, if you see something that you believe to be homophobic/racist/bigoted/sexist, and you say ‘hey – that is homophobic/racist/bigoted/sexist!’ then you, my friend, are a “reverse” homophobe/racist/bigot/sexist.  So, if I find racism repugnant and I inform someone that their remarks are offensive, I am being a hypocrite, because I should respect their right to be racist? Or I am somehow infringing on their First Am rights by not listening? Or I am being “rude” by calling them names? WTF?  I am supposed to respect shit like this?

You can see this more pointedly played out in all the “reverse” racism claims. Which apparently now can be used both offensively and defensively.  The offensive or ‘traditional’ use is when A attacks B as being “reverse racist” because B has either engaged in or supported actions that promote non-whites. See, for example this argument or this compilation of ridiculousness.  As I have written before, I think this is complete and utter bullshit. You don’t make things truly equal by just calling it equal.

But the new defensive use is even more mind-boggling. As you can see on any comment board, “reverse racism” is also when someone observes that a person or comment is racist. Because, as I understand it, you are assuming that it/they are racist because they are expressing racist thought. BUT, they insist they are NOT racist and that you, therefore, are racist, because you have assumed that they are racist. Yeah. I know. It’s confusing. But I am sure you all know what I am talking about.  For example, take this sign:

Obama Is...

If I point out that this sign is offensive and seems racist to me, the signholder would say (with the unrighteous indignation) ‘it isn’t about race! You keep making it about race – so YOU are the racist!’

But you know what? I didn’t make the sign.


  1. November 13, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    “Reverse racism” arguments just blow my mind. My favorite is when one of my lily-white students claims that they know someone who was once made fun of, made to feel uncomfortable, or was in some other way “discriminated against” because they were white in a black neighborhood/school/club. Who among us has not been in an uncomfortable situation, and things certainly do happen from time to time that might be motivated by racial anger. But is it really logical to compare a white person’s experience in our white-dominated society with a black, asian, or hispanic person’s experience in America: especially in our 93% white corner of America? I’m just saying …

  2. Rachel said,

    November 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    I hate the View. With fiery passion. I have gotten into several “discussions” with people that boil down to a reverse racism argument. My favorite is:
    (Them) “Wow! So and so is such a (insert racially derogatory term).”
    (Me) “That’s pretty intolerant, don’t you think?”
    (Them) “No, it’s you is intolerant – that wasn’t the intent of my statement!”
    (Me) “Not to play Captain Obvious, but why did you say it then?”
    It’s beyond frustrating…and yet, because (for some unknown reason) Fox still has followers – it’s become quite the defense mechanism for pointing out the “good will” that apparently underlies racist banter.

  3. southern female lawyer said,

    November 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Blame the victim until that stops working and then play the victim.

  4. money guide said,

    August 17, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Great story over again. I am looking forward for your next post!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: