Hey sorry about the downvotes. I want you to know I appreciate the response.
So if the criticism were simply his comments (which I dont even know what they were, but let's just say they are disqualifying) there wouldn't be an issue. I am not ignoring because I don't think that matters--I am ignoring them because the author specifically says it's not about that.
But the byline of the article is "the media focus on Mike Richards' insensitive comments misses a deeper issue with the host search that "suggests the problem may not be just a bad branch, but a rotten root."
So even without his comments, he did not approve of Richards.
He spends a few paragraphs praising Jeopardy for being a leader in science and knowledge, and decrying anti-science and anti-history. I think if you look at the essay as a whole, it seems like Abdul-Jabbar associates the choice of a white man with regression on these fronts. It's one of those 'just another white guy' rants. As if we are all similar and replaceable. As if one white guy is the same as another.
I earnestly believe that if the roles were swapped this would be very eyebrow raising. Imagine I had an essay talking about how we need a smart host with a high IQ who is articulate. If I then decry the choice of a certain ethnicity, it feels like I am saying that ethnicity doesnt represent those values.
So let's cut the crap: he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress. They are anti-intellectual deadweight clinging to the past. They are deplorables. Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
Yes, I am reading between the lines here. But that's the same strategy that progressives use (and often it's correct. For instance, you cannot understand birtherisn without reading between the lines to understand it's just xenophobia.
he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress.
I don't know about the race or gender part of that sentence, but the point of being conservative is to want things not to change. To say a conservative opposes progress is more of a definition than an accusation.
>But the byline of the article is "the media focus on Mike Richards' insensitive comments misses a deeper issue with the host search that "suggests the problem may not be just a bad branch, but a rotten root." So even without his comments, he did not approve of Richards.
Yes. And? Even without his comments, I don't approve of Richards either. Abdul-Jabbar goes on to describe why, and I endorse his straightfoward explication:
>"Admirably, the producers had rotated guest hosts that represented a cross-section of America: women, men, Black, white. Many were more than just entertainers, they were also doctors, journalists, people with demonstrable interests beyond the television industry. But when it came to choosing the permanent host, they defaulted to a white male with a background as a television producer and game show host. His credentials included stints behind the scenes at The Price Is Right and Let’s Make a Deal, shows featuring avarice more than advancement. The choice of Mike Richards was business as usual."
I don't know that you're justified in assuming that Abdul-Jabbar is engaging in a "'just another white guy' rant", given the rest of the sentence, the first of the article in which Abdul-Jabbar mentions Richards' race.
If one actually reads the article, it's clear it's not about race at all, as much as it is not choosing some uncredentialed white guy who denigrates others based on their race, when they could be appointing, say, someone more emblematic of what Jeopardy represents in Western entertainment. Like someone from the diverse and intellectual guest host list. Anyone.
>So if the criticism were simply his comments (which I dont even know what they were, but let's just say they are disqualifying) there wouldn't be an issue
To be honest, I think that taking a position like the one you've taken without knowing at least this much about the situation is surprising. Could it be that Richards is familiar enough to you that you're defending him reflexively?
>So let's cut the crap: he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress. They are anti-intellectual deadweight clinging to the past. They are deplorables. Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
Uh. Abdul-Jabbar's stated criteria are not "a non-white guy". They are: having the appearance of a public intellectual and not-racist, and Richards is neither. I have no idea why you'd jump to such a startling conclusion. It's entirely unsupported. I'll excerpt it again:
>"The ideal host for Jeopardy! should embody what the show means to its viewership: a passion for knowledge and a respect for a diverse community. Maybe the host would also reflect that diversity in order to show that it’s not just white males who can be the gatekeepers to these values."
No he didn't...? The final sentence of my reply is
>"Maybe the host would also reflect that diversity in order to show that it’s not just white males who can be the gatekeepers to these values."
The word maybe ought to strike you, there. The previous sentence outlines the two priorities, "a passion for knowledge and a respect for a diverse community", but that last sentence merely suggests that it need not be another white guy.
From this, you synthesized
>>Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
To justify this screed, or even your first post, with such an insane logical leap makes me wonder about, as MLK said, the content of your character.
So if the criticism were simply his comments (which I dont even know what they were, but let's just say they are disqualifying) there wouldn't be an issue. I am not ignoring because I don't think that matters--I am ignoring them because the author specifically says it's not about that.
But the byline of the article is "the media focus on Mike Richards' insensitive comments misses a deeper issue with the host search that "suggests the problem may not be just a bad branch, but a rotten root."
So even without his comments, he did not approve of Richards.
He spends a few paragraphs praising Jeopardy for being a leader in science and knowledge, and decrying anti-science and anti-history. I think if you look at the essay as a whole, it seems like Abdul-Jabbar associates the choice of a white man with regression on these fronts. It's one of those 'just another white guy' rants. As if we are all similar and replaceable. As if one white guy is the same as another.
I earnestly believe that if the roles were swapped this would be very eyebrow raising. Imagine I had an essay talking about how we need a smart host with a high IQ who is articulate. If I then decry the choice of a certain ethnicity, it feels like I am saying that ethnicity doesnt represent those values.
So let's cut the crap: he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress. They are anti-intellectual deadweight clinging to the past. They are deplorables. Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
Yes, I am reading between the lines here. But that's the same strategy that progressives use (and often it's correct. For instance, you cannot understand birtherisn without reading between the lines to understand it's just xenophobia.