Blowhard, Esq. writes:
I don’t know what’s more annoying: Michael Che’s triumphantly smug face or this stupid anti-intellectual argument that I hear constantly. Oh, I know, it’s the dumb argument, hence this post.
Whether the Constitution needs to be amended is a discussion that reasonable people can have. Perhaps it’s true that conditions have changed so much since the late 18th century that it’s prudent to scale back or revise some of its provisions. The Founding Fathers would be the first to agree that a political order sometimes needs to be changed. They included an amendment process, after all.
But whether the Founders were old, white, and racist is entirely irrelevant. Mr. Che and the wise sages at Daily Kos would be on the side of confiscating guns even if the Founders were all abolitionists who broke with England to establish the United States of Oppression-Free Diversity. Furthermore, if we’re supposed to think that the 2nd Amendment is discredited because Washington, Jefferson, and Madison owned slaves, then by that logic the entire Bill of Rights is suspect. So which other Amendments should we dispense with, Mr. Che?
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to a government that doesn’t establish an official religion, but they also said you could own people.”
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to demand a warrant founded upon probable cause, but they also said you could own people.”
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to be free of double jeopardy, but they also said you could own people.”
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to due process, but they also said you could own people.”
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to a jury trial, but they also said you could own people.”
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to confront your accusers, but they also said you could own people.”
- “I know the forefathers said you have a right to punishment that isn’t cruel or unusual, but they also said you could own people.”
C’mon, the Founders were a bunch of racist shitlords! Surely we can do better.
Blowhard, Esq.
Callowman
Sherbrooke
Eddie Pensier
Enzo Nakamura
Epaminondas
Fabrizio del Wrongo
Fenster
Brundle Guy
Glynn Marshes
Paleo Retiree
Atypical Neurotic
Question Lady
Sax von Stroheim
Sir Barken Hyena
The Mistaken
Uncouth Reflections 
The reality is that a lot of people are owned by other people today. (Langeweische in Vanity Fair.)
LikeLike
Maybe SNL should come with a trigger warning?
LikeLike
He needs to work on his smirk.
LikeLike
“I know the forefathers said you have a right to a government that doesn’t establish an official religion, but they also said you could own people.”
Good point. I never thought of it that way.
LikeLike
Do you mean a comic moment in a Saturday night skit show isn’t an exemplar of stellar logic? What kind of world has this become?!
LikeLike
Whether one finds the joke funny or not, it’s an argument that I see invoked in all sorts of contexts.
LikeLike
Not to mention that comedians have been lauded as truth tellers since the beginning of time. And I absolutely agree that’s one of their functions — saying what can’t be said. But if that’s the case, then they’re accountable for their jokes insofar as they can’t distance themselves from them when criticized.
Jon Stewart did this all the time. He was hailed as “the last honest newsman” but when he was forced to defend his political views, he’d dismiss the criticism with a “Har har, I’m just a comedian.” Sorry, can’t have it both ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You say you can’t have it both ways, Jon Stewart’s spectacular success as a cultural figure would say otherwise.
LikeLike
Jon Stewart’s spectacular success is merely proof of two facts: A) it pays to preach to the choir and b) it pays to be a tool of the Establishment.
LikeLike
Diversity is not compatible with a legal culture emphasizing civil rights — look at any modern nation that is ethnically diverse *and* even remotely stable, and they achieve that stability by a highly powerful state.
Brazil might as well be a police state, but it’s needed with all the ferals running loose.
Singapore is authoritarian in order to keep the Chinese and Muslims from killing each other in civil war.
South Africa in the not-too-distant past enjoyed stability via apartheid, for obvious reasons.
Once the population becomes diverse enough, one or more groups will try to assert their group’s dominance at the expense of others — that’s only natural. To contain that from exploding into ongoing, everyday civil war, the government will have to strip away many civil rights — and from all groups, even those less inclined to do wrong (otherwise their “unfair” treatment would trigger resentment and violence from some other group).
Where in America do the police have a tendency to “go too far”? — it’s not rural New England, it’s Texas, California, Florida, and other overly-diverse places where a higher level of state force is sadly but truly needed just to secure basic law & order.
Any civil libertarian who doesn’t support homogenizing the population is either clueless, dishonest, or traitorous.
LikeLike
Jefferson was right. ” … Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.”
LikeLike
Anyone whose last name is ‘Che’ who doesn’t disown his/her own parents… I won’t bother taking seriously.
Then again, not surprised he hints at violence against those he disagrees with; hence ‘going to another room and deciding what are we going to do about grandpa’, blah blah blah.
LikeLike
And frankly, such low intellect as displayed by him is the best argument in favour of enslaving some, on such a basis rather than skin colour. 😉
LikeLike
Most of the comments here come off just as humorless and over-sensitive as those college students clambering for trigger warnings. Jeez. I agree, the logic of the joke isn’t that sound, but it’s still just a fucking joke.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t have commented if I didn’t see the substantive argument frequently invoked in non-joke contexts.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Easy fallacy lol
LikeLike
Your very clever listing of other pieces of the constitution that are open to question because of the moral standing of their authors *entirely misses the point*, which I guess is not surprising.
The point being, there is nothing sacrosanct about any of it, no part of it that is not open to question. This would be true even if the forefathers were saints according to today’s standards, of course.
LikeLike
No sir, you are the one who seems to have missed the point b/c I spent a whole paragraph acknowledging that “there is nothing sacrosanct about any of it, no part of it that is not open to question.” Perhaps in your eagerness to tell me how wrong I am you skipped over the part where I said:
Whether the Constitution needs to be amended is a discussion that reasonable people can have. Perhaps it’s true that conditions have changed so much since the late 18th century that it’s prudent to scale back or revise some of its provisions. The Founding Fathers would be the first to agree that a political order sometimes needs to be changed. They included an amendment process, after all.
I was attacking the underlying premise of the joke, i.e. that b/c the FFs were racist, then the Second Amendment is suspect. Well, if that’s true, then all the Amendments are suspect, even ones that liberals hold on to for dear life. This was the whole point of the joke, not merely that the Second Amendment is outdated and should be repealed.
LikeLike