“Dr.” Laura confuses her right to be a bigot with her “right” to have a radio show…

And in totally unsurprising news, Laura Schlessinger, like most intolerant and hateful racists, doesn’t understand that her “First Amendment” rights do not ensure her a platform to spout her views, like a radio show. If people boycott someone, they are not restricting that person’s constitutional rights. They are exercising theirs, and then leaving it up to the marketplace of ideas (and in this case advertisers) to determine what happens. You played, you lost, you phony-ass radio quack. Tough.


26 Responses to ““Dr.” Laura confuses her right to be a bigot with her “right” to have a radio show…”

  1. tim, like your thoughts, but could you cut out the ad hominem attacks? they detract from your message and make you sound like some of he right-wing knuckleheads. when they resort to attacks on personality, their ideas are greatly reduced in significance. i learned a bunch from reading your articles. thanks, bill

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    what is ad hominem here? I made a point about why her thinking is flawed on the issue of the first amendment… I called her fake-ass quack because she is not a doctor. That is a fact, not an ad hominem, actually…I think right wing fools should be ridiculed frankly. Ridicule is an effective political tool that is not used enough on people like this.

    [Reply]

  2. PREACH Bruh!

    Praise Allah for Tim Wise.

    You are -THAT- DUDE!

    [Reply]

  3. Couldn’t agree with you more on this one, Mr. wise: “Dr.” Laura IS a “fake-ass quack”, just like “Dr.” Michael Savage (another darling of the Right-wing hate machine).

    1. She’s obviously racist.
    2. She lies about her own credentials constantly: She’s a PHISIOLOGIST — NOT any kind of psychotherapist or suchlike. I’m not saying only professionally-certified psychotherapists should do advice-shows or anything, but when your degree has nothing to do with it, why make such a big show about her “doctorate?” Maybe, to trick people into believing she really IS more than a hopped-up advice columnist.

    3. This has NOTHING to do with “Free speech”: if the affiliates and advertisers (justifiably) don’t want to be associated with this sad little public relations nightmare she’s finally gotten herself into, then they should pull their financial backing. Same with Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. The truly ironic thing is how often Right-wing propagandists — who are supposedly so into the “Free enterprise system” (yeah right), start whimpering about how “oppressed” they are, when they say something even more idiotic than usual, and start losing sponsors/listeners as a result. Hypocrisy? As that other Right-wing luminary Sarah Palin would say: “You Betcha!”

    [Reply]

  4. I’m gonna agree with bill here.

    [Reply]

  5. Tim:

    Can you tell the first commenter, Bill, to get his panties out of a bunch? Also, keep doing what you do and in the way you do it. ONE LOVE

    [Reply]

  6. Like Dave, I am also agreeing with Bill. I know, too, that my friend Rebecca (who introduced me to Tim Wise’s writing) feels the same. We both subscribe to his facebook page and we both have often commented on how distracting some of the language can sometimes be to the overall message.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I appreciate the feedback here, but I am still curious, why is it ad hominem to call someone who is fake, fake? Or is it the colloquial fake-ass that has y’all upset. I am really curious here. Also, why should we avoid ridiculing ridiculous people? This idea that we should always play nice with people who literally are trying to destroy what progress we’ve made in this country, or treat them with respect that they do not deserve, strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps if folks could tell me where the line is, in your estimation, I may understand better when the issue is…thanks

    [Reply]

  7. I agree with Tim here that you need to ridicule ridiculous people. Sometimes you need to be a little harsher to put light on the severity of the issue, and unfortunately too much people approach these issues too “calmly”, thus emboldening racists to persist. Outrage at times is necessary.

    [Reply]

  8. I think it’s that idea of determining who does and does not deserve respect. Don’t get me wrong, I’m elated that Dr. Laura is off the air. (I’m a little afraid it means she’ll end up running for office though). I hear what Donna is saying about comments in general lately, not just the “fake-ass quack” comment. It seems that I hear more wisdom combined with hate lately when I used to hear only wisdom from you. And I definitely believe that hate breeds hate. I commend you for your passion and the work you do to bring racism, racist people and racist actions to its knees. I just hope that you aren’t losing the opportunity to open the eyes of white people who remain blind to this issue. I don’t think calling Dr. Laura a “fake-ass” is the real issue here. It’s the facebook message that led me here that read something like “why can’t assholes just leave quietly…”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    fair enough and thanks for the feedback!

    [Reply]

  9. Frankly, I’m tired of all these unsupported, concern troll statements about “things detracting” from, in this case, Tim’s point/message. I’m pretty sure Tim, of all people, knows what his “message” is better than someone who is not Tim Wise. I’m also sure Tim was completely conscious of the point he wanted to make. The fact that Bill and others have expressed their problems with Tim’s post is, obviously, them saying they don’t like or agree with the last sentence of Tim’s post which was hardly the focus of his post.

    I wish people, Bill in this case, would just be direct and clearly state that they have a problem with the language or whatever the issue is instead of acting like they’re Tim’s speech writers and message minders as if he hired them as his campaign managers or something. This need by too many people to couch heir personal concerns (which are really their own individual personal preference, apparently) as concerns over, in this case, Tim’s message getting across and not being tarnished/tainted by so-called name-calling/ad-homenims is dishonest and Bill presented like he was Tim’s campaign manager or some other kind of image-maker to whom Tim is supposed to listen to because Bill somehow knows what Tim’s message is supposed to be but Tim, our hapless candidate, apparently does not.

    A-freakin’-mazing…

    I’ve long since been one who has observed this pendant, cliche catching routine when people, who don’t have a substantive point to make, seize the opportunity to use some kind of conventional wisdom or common (and, often, unexamined) saying as a way to have something to say to make themselves seem smart, moral (aka self-righteous) or somehow on-point. I’ve also thought the emphasis on style vs. substance or, rather, the existence of the cliches like “name-calling takes away from your point” to be a ready excuses to discard what reading comprehension and logical debate/critique requires in all instances: that you identify and focus on the main idea or central argument a person is making.

    Ironically, I’m making this same observation, seeing the same kind of unsupported, high-minded/moralistic points made about the Black-on-Black use of the N-Word. African-Americans who actively want to abolish the word or insist on no one using it make repeatedly claims that the Black-on-Black use of the term “demeans” us as African-Americans, etc. but never support their claim.

    It’s as if people think wrapping their statements in high-minded language alone with little more than the rhetorical imagery of how bad it looks for Tim or Black comedians/rappers to use certain words/speech/methods (e.g. Tim is supposed to be embarrassed by the thought that he is behaving like the “right-wing knuckleheads”… OH, THE IRONY!!!) actually amounts to an actual substantive argument/point.

    Out of all the times I’ve heard the “it detracts from your message” line (too numerous to mention), I’ve never seen someone prove it. Almost always it’s an idle claim put out there under the pretense of concern over someone else’s “message” which the critic always gets wrong in terms the motivating philosophy behind a person’s choice of words which Tim’s statement about ridicule clearly illustrate (i.e. Bill apparently didn’t think the intent of Tim’s ‘message’ was to ridicule).

    Bill was wrong.

    [Reply]

  10. Holly: “I just hope that you aren’t losing the opportunity to open the eyes of white people who remain blind to this issue.”

    What is this based on? Either there is evidence that Tim has lost the opportunity to open the eyes of white people (Tim, is that the sole, entire aim of every post you make?) or he has not.

    And the idea that Tim has shifted into “hate” mode when he supposedly used to provide (more) wisdom is a rather outrageous claim. There is an obvious wisdom to ridiculing racists. Think of the historical social tolerance and status of the KKK. It’s because of a successful campaign of ridicule (amongst other things) against the KKK, etc. that no one (white) wants to be called a racist given the KKK=racist imagery (white) people have in their heads.

    Also, the idea that Tim is now on some kind of “hate” campaign just isn’t true. Mr. Wise has been sharp with his criticisms of institutions and personalities throughout the near decade or so that I’ve followed him. This curious and simplistic charge to label Mr. Wise with others who “hate” attempts to rob Tim of the diversity of emotions, feelings and approaches he wants to make toward addressing racism and racists. But I guess Tim is supposed to have unconditional “love” for the racists and not “hate” or comment on so many of their behaviors.

    On another note, it should be clear that with this new blog format, Mr. Wise intends on making more frequent (and obviously shorter) posts and comments as opposed to occasional commentaries which set out to address an issue from a number of angles with an overt, systematic path of reasoning.

    I say… let Tim be Tim.

    [Reply]

  11. Dr. Laura is a quacker. End of story.

    [Reply]

  12. Nquest – RIGHT ON.

    I, personally, GREATLY APPRECIATE the ‘realness’ of Tim Wise. I completely abhor disingenuousness. It’s one of the main reasons why he is THAT DUDE. He keeps it EXTRA REAL. -TOO- real for many in this country. They are simply not ready.

    (oh wait, do my ‘urban’ colloquialisms offend your delicate sensibilities and detract from my message?)

    Absurd.

    [Reply]

  13. Okay folks: this is one of the reasons “Progressives” don’t get very far: at least Right-wingers have the balls to tell it like they see it. Too often, the supposedly “progressive” folks get hung up on whether the message was stated in a “nice” or “inoffensive” way, or use the (non)issue of “civility” as a cop-out.

    Same with Obama and his relentless drive to be “Bipartisan”. Y’know what? Trying to be “Bipartisan” with Right-wing psychopaths, is one of the biggest reasons he sucks as a president. If he had any gumption whatsoever, he’d REALIZE that Right-wing sociopaths (Republicans and Teabaggers) ALREADY think he’s a “socialist”, and/or that Hawaii is part of Kenya, or some other of their stupid nonsense, and actually DO what he claimed he was going to do, when he got (s)elected.

    But no. Instead, we get the spetacle of the guy trying to be “civil” and “bipartisan” — which essentially translates to “cave in on anything the Right-wingers don’t like”. At best, we get half-hearted “reforms” that don’t really address the underlying causes, and are so innoffensive to Right-wingers, as to NOT actually pose any kind of substantive threat to the status quo.

    Sorry if this “offends” anybody, folks, but it’s way past time where Right-wing sociopaths/their spokes-puppets, can be afforded ANYTHING even resembling “civility”. THEY took the gloves off thirty years ago. It’s WAY past time for “Progressives” to stop being so damn precious about whether something was “offensive”, and actually — to use the vernacular, with ABSOLUTELY NO APOLOGIES to “bill” — HAVE SOME BALLS.

    And no, that’s not a “rant”, folks — it’s way past the point where this should have become obvious.

    BTW, I thought Tim’s “message” was really clear: “you played, you lost, you fake-ass quack”. Also, totally true.

    I dearly HOPE “Dr”. Laura cries herself to sleep over this, folks.

    [Reply]

  14. Nquest – It’s been waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too long!! How are ya!

    I find Tim’s language a bit jolting, but it’s because I’m so unfamiliar with it. A white guy demonstrating anger about racism? That can take some time to get used to. And let’s be honest, when it comes to racism, whites and enablers of color need to be jolted back into reality.

    I’ve actually thought some of the same things Tim has written have self-censured due to personal experiences with being dismissed as just another angry black woman. That dismissal of justified anger, both mine and Tim’s, is called silencing and is a way of maintaining white supremacy. But at the end of the day, when I have to self-edit so I don’t risk offending (primarily) white people’s sensibilities, there’s a lot about racism that needs to be said that I’m not saying because I’m spending so much mental energy self-editing. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but that’s just not how we’re going to make in-roads into ending the impact of racism.

    And here’s another problem with forcing antiracists to be civil . . . or, well, more of an example of cognitive dissonance: white America (mainstream society) dismisses angry black women as typical, angry black men as scary, and even angry white women as men-hating feminists.

    But when white men get angry about anything (except racism unless they’ve been accused of being racist), all of a sudden we have to pay attention. And no matter how crazy a scene they cause, violent the threats they make, or idiotic their professed reason for being angry, there will be those who say it’s okay because they’re “justifiably angry.” We have an entire cable channel dedicated to angry whites. That’s racism.

    [Reply]

  15. We can get our message across and stil be civil. Regardless of how the right reacts – we can be above their level. So please keep it civil – we all understand fake but fake-a– is over the top for me too.

    [Reply]

  16. “Over the top?”

    How very precious of you. Likewise, I trust you won’t feel bad if I call “bullshit” on that, too. Read some George Lakoff, and really understand what he’s talking about, in terms of “framing the debate”. Then think about this: what YOU (and too many others) calls “civility” is really just a giant cop-out. Same with being “bipartisan”. what passes for “the Left” in this country has spent WAY too long, being excruciatingly nice and “inoffensive” to the worst elements of our culture, and stumbling over themselves in an effort to find “common ground” with them.

    Sorry, folks: Gays can’t find “common ground” with Fred Phelps. Nor can anybody with even a shred of intelligence find “common ground” with Sarah Palin/the Teabagger crowd. Can’t be done, simply because their ideas are so horribly, dangerously bad — as I’d HOPE people would understand, especially if those people grew up in a Post-Reagan era.

    And I gotta say, just for me: the fact that you can’t even bring yourself to type out the phrase “Fake-ass” bespeaks volumes, in and of itself.

    “civility” is EARNED. I’d hope you’d have the guts to spit in Rush Limbaugh’s face (and/or heckle him) if the opportunity presented itself, irrespective of how it impacted his “feelings”.

    Think about this: do you think the Jews should have been “civil” with HIitler, or tried to find “common ground?”

    And no, I don’t really think Tim was “angry”, so much as justifiably pleased that a Right-wing propagandist ended up shooting herself in the ass (oops, that oh-so-dreaded word comes up again!).

    [Reply]

  17. Dr. Laura knew the connotation of a white person using the n-word and still said the word anyhow. She should have just given the woman sound advice without getting so personal about the conflict. Besides, what husband lets their friends nag their wife about an overall group of people?

    [Reply]

  18. No1KState, I’m doing good. Hope all is well with you and I second your point about the way White anger/resentment is overly privileged in society no matter how misguided, misplaced and out of control it is. That’s one thing I will always hold against our dear President Obama (back during his campaign, Philadelphia race speech), but I digress…

    [Reply]

  19. @ Henry – Exactly.

    @ Momsworld – Remember that when the caller protested Laura’s use of the n-word, Laura responded indignantly, “Don’t NAACP me!”

    How can we be civil in an atmosphere where the right blows steam at every little perceived offense? Obama’s too cool for school when it comes to BP, but still he’s accused of hating whites. I’m all for keeping one’s composure and sticking to facts – but at some point, “civility” turns into a stand-in for “acquiesence.”

    Is Laura not intolerant? Is she not hateful? Is she not racist? If you answered yes to these questions, then Tim’s being civil.

    [Reply]

  20. Tim—the title of your post says it all. What IS it that bigots don’t get about the First Amendment? I mean, do they honestly think that anger and disgust from opponents is the same as government-imposed repression? Why is it that folks like Schlessinger, Glenn Beck, Don Imus, and too many other fools to name think they have a “right” to be protected from
    criticism? Just who is doing the silencing here?

    So when the caller Jade found herself humiliated and tongue-tied on the phone with Dr. Laura, was she also “censoring” and silencing the the fake Doctor’s voice?

    And in other news, “up” is really “down” and west is north—more at eleven./end snark

    [Reply]

  21. @YC…Totally agree. By the way, what does “Dont NAACP me” mean?….lol. That’s truly the dumbest statement ever!! Tim you understand the tactics needed to fight this fight, don’t stop. Nice has no place is this conversation.

    [Reply]

  22. There is one point I should make in Dr. Laura’s defense, however.

    To say that people boycotting you is violating your First Amendment right is absurd.

    But people who really approve of free speech and believe in it are going to be very careful about embracing any official heresies and punishing them in public. Social coercion can be just as limiting and problematic as state coercion, as the history of ethnic groups in this country can attest to.

    Of course, a public figure using a hateful word? Yeah, that’s an appropriate time to pull the trigger.

    [Reply]

  23. Boy, you said it. Very concisely at that. “Dr.” Laura has no First Amendment right to be free from criticism. Laura was merely called out by others who were exercising THEIR First Amendment rights for her repeated mindless, insensitive and abusive use of the N-Word, all in response to a caller who was asking for her advice no less. If SHE is that sensitive to criticism, then she should quit her show (heaven knows we would all be better for it), but she should make the ridiculous excuse that she wants to “regain” her First Amendment rights. She is a quack indeed.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply