How do you falsely accuse a black man of calling for white genocide, when you know full well he didn’t actually call for any kind of genocide?
Well, if you’re David Marcus of The Federalist, you might do it by pretending that you’re making some sort of meta argument about how the left gets away with rhetorical excesses that would never be allowed on the right.
But before you get to that, you start with this categorical accusation:
In a feisty segment on Sunday’s “A.M. Joy,” Elie Mystal of Above the Law made an inflammatory comment in which he said white people who voted for Donald Trump should be destroyed.
When The Federalist tweeted out a link to Marcus’ piece, using similar phrasing, fans of the publication reacted with predictable outrage, accusing Mystal of “hate speech” and “racism” and “inciting mass murder.”
“Well, if that isn’t a call, for an all out, guns a blazing in the streets, Civil War…… nothing is!” declared one especially outraged Tweeter.
Yet another suggested that comments like Mystal’s deserved some sort of divine intervention, possibly imagining it might come in the form of a thunderbolt.
On Twitter, Marcus made his insinuation even blunter. “I feel like there’s a word for suggesting that the majority of a racial group should be destroyed,” he wrote in a Tweet that was retweeted more than a hundred times.
There was just one problem: Mystal didn’t actually call for anyone to be literally “destroyed.” He was calling for those who oppose Trump to beat — to destroy — Trump fans at the ballot box. Here’s the full quote:
You don’t communicate to them, you beat them. You beat them. They are not a majority of this country — the majority of white people in this country are not a majority of the country. All the people who are not fooled by this need to come together, go to the polls, go to the protests, do whatever you have to do. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.
It’s abundantly clear from context that he’s not talking about physical violence; he’s talking about winning at the polls.
But, knowing the propensity of right-wingers to take quotes out of context, the host of the show that Mystal was on, Joy Reid, jumped in to try to prevent someone like /Marcus from ginning up an invented controversy through deliberate misinterpretation.
“And by the way,” she declared, “the black man said ‘beat them,’ meaning in … an election.” Mystal himself added that he was using a “figure of speech.”
Marcus, of course, left these clarifying remarks out of his piece, in which he did exactly what Reid feared someone would.
Instead of acknowledging his rhetorical sleight-of-hand, Marcus went on to sniff indignantly about a supposed “double standard” in political hyperbole, in which Trump and his fans are criticized for talking about an immigrant “invasion” while liberals and leftists can get away with … suggesting that one should beat one’s political rivals at the polls?
When [Trump’s] supporters use fiery language and hyperbole, it is incitement to violence, but when progressives do the same thing, it is justified outrage.
Even the most generous interpretation of his comments — that “beat them” and “destroy them” mean at the polls — leaves some very troubling question. [sic] Are all of these tens of millions of people to be shunned and kicked out of polite society? If they are so horribly irredeemable that others cannot communicate or negotiate with them, what would Mystal have us do with them?
Mystal didn’t say anything about shunning anyone. And even if he had ,so what? Not getting invited to a barbecue is not the same as genocide.
More to the point, saying that it’s not worth trying to convince Trump supporters to come over to the Democratic side is not the same as declaring refugees to be some sort of invading force.
But why am I even bothering to respond to any of the details in Marcus’s piece? I’m sure most of those who reacted to his headline, or the first couple of lines of the piece, never bothered to actually read the whole thing. I don’t think they were supposed to.
It looks an awful lot like the real point of Marcus’ piece wan’t his meta argument; his piece looks, rather, like little more than a cheap rhetorical ploy — a crude, bad faith attempt to smear Mystal, and give the false impression he really did call for white genocide — as both the title and the start of the piece suggest. The rest of the piece, I think, is there largely to cover Marcus’ ass — though he knows, and I suspect hopes, that most people won’t read much past the headline.
Ironically, this whole invented controversy makes clear that Mystal was right: there’s no point in communicating with disingenuous asshats like Marcus who argue in such extravagantly bad faith. We need to vote Trump and the GOP out of power, and we need to send people like Marcus back to the political fringe where they belong.
And no, I’m not inviting any of them to any barbeques either.
— David Futrelle
Brand New Ugly highlights stories that are emblematic of the political and social ugliness of Trump’s America. Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
None of the gospels state that Jesus hit anyone with the whip. He probably didn’t need to; cracking it loudly while waving it around and yelling would have gotten the people and animals moving without him having to strike anybody.
I’m so sick of this Super Macho Jesus crap. Jesus overruled his friends when they tried to tell some children to scram; instead he blessed the kids and told the apostles that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to “such as these.” He said of himself that he was gentle and humble and would give rest to those in need of it. Doesn’t sound like much of an ass-whooper to me.
@Jenora Fuer:
(Raises hand) It drags a little in places, but it has wonderful moments – the surprisingly large number of atheists who jump out of that car (and they don’t actually seem to be working for/with the vampires, so apparently they’ve all just been driving around looking for god so they can fight him)! The best dramatization I’ve ever seen of the Parable of the Good Samaritan! Santos the luchadore! Star Wars scat-singing! All on a budget of approximately $29.99, by the looks of it.
@Moon_custafer:
I will admit that one of my favorite moments, just for the absurd truth of the little things, was right at the end… Jesus is doing a new Sermon on the Mount (on Parliament Hill) when a cell phone goes off. Everybody in the audience starts patting themselves down to check if it’s theirs… including the 9 year old kid standing next to his mother. And, of course, it turns out it was Jesus’ phone that had been ringing.
It really was just such a beautifully absurd movie. “I am everywhere!”
Time to break out The Gospel According to Supply Side Jesus again.
@AsAboveSoBelow
And yet many evangelicals (at least in America) are part of the prosperity gospel, which as far as I’m concerned is the modern day money changers in the temple.
Ugh, don’t get me started on the prosperity and word-faith nonsense. If you’re poor and/or sick, it’s because your faith isn’t strong enough. Bull. Shit.
@AsAboveSoBelow
Not to mention that they seem to think that if you are LGBTQIPAN+ it’s because you chose to be and that if you’re depressed it’s because you wanted to be. I knew someone who had depression and whose Evangelical parents kept telling them that they should simply choose to think more positively.
And cracking a whip at someone to get them to do your bidding under threat of grave physical violence, which has likely already been done to them by other whip-crackers in the past, is a good thing because….?
@ Tovius/AsAboveSoBelow/Naglfar
Prosperity Gospel types and ‘faith isn’t strong enough’ promulgators are also falling into the sin of Simony and the errors of ‘Job’s comforters.’
Yeah, the ‘your faith wasn’t strong enough’ types are a curse on any society. It’s not even strictly a religious thing, ‘The Secret’ is very similar, and so is a lot of ‘alternative medicine’.
I was told that the money changers being driven from the Temple was at least in part because their presence was encouraging one-upmanship, where rich people going to the Temple would buy animals to be sacrificed in order to show off how ‘pious’ they were. So the issue with them was of a piece with ‘do not pray on the street as the hypocrites do’… the actual gospels are rather harsh on empty displays of piety.
Good luck getting that across to folks who insist on dressing in their ‘Sunday best’.
@kupo: My point was to counter that made by Pamela Sund in one of the tweets quoted above. Jesus is never described as kicking anyone’s “you-know-what” in the Gospels.
@Kevin: Job’s comforters, yeah. Job’s buddies were doing great until they started talking. 🙂
@Jenora: “The Secret” is as pernicious as word-faith/prosperity teaching.
Okay, well maybe if you want to talk about how non-violent your mythological dude is, don’t pretend like cracking a whip isn’t a violent action.
@kupo
Can we not. Its one thing to not beleive in something. Its another to go to someone who does believe in it and tell them it isn’t real.
My contribution to the growing list of macho-Jesus parodies: the SNL skit “Djesus Uncrossed,” starring Christoph Waltz.
@Lainy
Definition of myth:
Not sure how biblical stories don’t fit into that.
@kupo
And it’s still a jerk thing to do. It may reach the definition but I’m asking basic respect and to not do a jerk thing like calling someone’s religious beliefs a myth.
@kupo
Also I’m not saying that you are a jerk. You are a lovely person. But the action is a jerk thing to do. I just want to say I’m not making a negative remark about your character. Just what you said.
While biased as an atheist, I believe that christians and co should be tolerant of other people talking about their mythological figures. I mean, they actually believe other religions to be myth, so they are forced to accept that other people can see their god as a myth too.
As for Jesus himself, there’s the classical problem that as an omnipotent being, he could just make people not-jerk instead of trying to teach them a lesson by scaring them. But it enter quickly debates on what omnipotence even mean, so …
Re: the Jesus as myth thing
Most historians agree that Jesus existed, so referring to his story as a myth doesn’t seem correct. Of course, a small contingent of historians believe he didn’t exist, but this is a minority opinion that most reject.
Sure, but the historicity of a person at the centre of stories doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t reference the stories themselves as myth (kind of like King Arthur, maybe, or Achilles, for varying values of historicity). Or like Alexander the Great, say – known historical figure, legendary exploits.
Really, the only reason that Bible events and people are not typically referred to as mythology or legend is because Christianity is dominant and privileged. I see talk of Hindu mythology, Native American legends, etc. all the time.
And whether or not Jesus existed as a person, I haven’t looked at the evidence all that closely, I feel pretty safe in saying there’s zero evidence of divinity/supernatural powers. So, I don’t think the possible historical existence matters that much. It should also be noted that many major historians are of a religious tradition that believes Jesus did exist and may have their own biases.
Anyway, to me Christians being sensitive about how people talk about them are a little like white people who complain about reserve racism or men who complain about misandry. Even progressive Christians sometimes have a tendency to expect preferential treatment and a sensitivity usually reserved for marginalized groups. Given the oppression, both historical and current that’s done in the name of Christianity, it’s a bit unfair to demand excessive civility when discussing the oppression.
Just my two cents. Although I expect it won’t be a popular opinion given that I’ve been through this exact same argument here many times before and been in the minority.
@kupo, Please stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
@AsAboveSoBelow
I’m not attempting to put words in your mouth. I’m attempting to interpret your statement. What was your point then, if it wasn’t that cracking a whip is somehow non-violent?
@Ohlmann, opposablethumbs, and WWTH
Thanks for helping me explain the myth thing.
My point was that as depicted in the Gospels, Jesus was not a kicker of “you-know-what,” despite whatshername’s tweet describing him as such. Whether or not the man existed (I think he did, but who knows), the people who wrote about him didn’t depict him beating up anyone. That’s all I was trying to say.
@AsAboveSoBelow
And cracking a whip is not implying beating because….?