08-15-2018 08:25:42 AM -0700
08-15-2018 07:20:31 AM -0700
08-14-2018 03:59:34 PM -0700
08-14-2018 09:50:46 AM -0700
08-14-2018 08:23:23 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


Tuesday's HOT MIC

Here is today's HOT MIC.

This video is making the rounds on Twitter this morning:

Allhapundit says it will "heal America" (pretty sure he was being sarcastic). Others aren't sure what they just saw. Because it focuses on race (and furniture!) it's being called racist. But is it really? Comedians Rhett and Link, who created the video, say no.

We knew this video was going to be controversial. Anytime race is discussed in any capacity, controversy ensues. The racial reconciliation concept was a joint effort between the Red House staff and us. They pointed out the fact that their employees and customer base were like the "Rainbow Coalition", and we thought something with a comical racial reconciliation theme would be fun, as well as a conversation starter. For those of you who think this video is racist, we'd like you to distinguish between "racist" and "racial". Racism is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." Racial is "of, relating to, or based on a race". This video is very obviously racial as opposed to racist. This video doesn't promote or feature hatred or intolerance. Rather, it's the very opposite. This commercial promotes inclusion and reconciliation, if not in a comical way. To point out the obvious, the irony in this video is that it's completely ridiculous for people to relate furniture to their race. People of all colors are welcome at the Red House, which is something that is taken for granted today, but there was a time in the not-so-distant past during which things as simple as a water fountain were NOT for everyone. If Saturday Night Live, Mad TV, or Dave Chappelle for that matter, were to address racial issues in a comical way (something that they all do VERY regularly), they would have pushed the envelope MUCH further.

Discussing race in the US is taboo. It always makes people feel uncomfortable. We think it's a shame that someone saying "I'm white" or "I'm black" creates such a stir. There are real cultural identities within different people groups, and these things should be celebrated and embraced, not swept under the rug. This video is an attempt to use humor to spark a discussion about race issues, because we still have a long way to go.

Sometimes the best way to address social taboos is to mock them. We can't have that "national conversation about race" everyone keeps asking for if, you know, we can't talk about race in any context.

Yeah, we haven't heard a lot about him for the last couple of #MeToo months.

Rhetorical question, right?

More from the original Daily Caller post:

And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”

In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

Media bias takes on many forms and, given Google's ubiquity, this may be one of the more insidious yet. Google isn't just spoon feeding liberal nonsense to people, it's earth-moving it. The tendency to only check conservative sites mirrors exactly what the MSM does to Republicans in the White House. I was just thinking yesterday that I wonder what an exhaustive search of the 2009-2016 media would turn up in the way of President Obama being fact checked. Anything? President Trump can't say "Hello" without "news" outlets fact checking to see if that was, in fact, an appropriate greeting.

It is no secret that Google is a left-leaning corporate monolith, but it is also a for-profit enterprise. Maybe they're rolling the dice that people are so used to using the search engine that this kind of news won't affect them.

Then again, maybe a little more sunshine will shake things up.

As someone who was a friend of Andrew Breitbart (although we had a sometimes tempestuous relationship) and also of Larry Solov (Breitbart.com CEO), it's hard to see how Larry et al had any choice but to end Steve Bannon's tenure. Further,  anyone who thinks Bannon commands any kind of serious loyalty now or constitutes any kind of threat to Trump is being foolish or ginning up an imaginary conflict. That's over. My guess is Steve B. is stewing in his own juices now, filled with regret and trying to figure out how to get back in Trump's good graces. Maybe he has a chance — look at the Trump-Graham relationship now — but I tend to doubt it. Only an idiot disses a man's family — especially to an obvious sleaze bucket like Michael Wolff.

Ivanka Trump praised Oprah Winfrey's anti-harassment speech at the Golden Globes.

Apparently this wasn't enough for the #TIMESUP crowd:

Vox:

Ivanka Trump failed to acknowledge that one of the men for whom time should be up, theoretically, is her father, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of alleged sexual misconduct and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. Some of his accusers spoke out as recently as last month, renewing their allegations in light of the #MeToo movement.

Trump herself has been the subject of her father’s sexist behavior: In 2004, Donald Trump told radio DJ Howard Stern that it was okay to characterize Ivanka as “a piece of ass” and famously said he would be romantically interested in Ivanka if she weren’t his daughter. Last year, then-candidate Trump said he thought his daughter should change jobs or careers if she were sexually harassed at work — not that the harasser should be held accountable.

Sheesh. Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer. Ivanka is not guilty of sexual harassment. But because of her father's questionable past, this somehow discredits her support? Where's the logic in that?

Some have pointed to this statement of "questionable" advice to women who may be sexually harassed.

Ivanka gave women some questionable advice for dealing with sexual harassment in her 2009 book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Business and in Life: “Learn to figure out when a hoot or a holler is indeed a form of harassment and when it’s merely a good-natured tease that you can give back in kind.”

Sounds like common sense to me. But then, I'm not a woman and don't get harassed. I'm sure some women are very uncomfortable having their sexiness and good looks commented on like that. I'm also sure that others enjoy the attention. Since most of us aren't mind readers and don't know what the reaction to a wolf whistle or catcall might be, good manners demand that we refrain from doing it.

Unless manners, too, are "sexist" in which case why should we care what women think anyway?