Sirota Challenged on Twitter, Compares Self to MLK

This Storify by the always entertaining “dvnix” is a must-read.

Elon James White of the TWiB Network went after Sirota for his insane conflation of Obama and Zimmerman. Hilarity and insufferable whitesplaining followed. Here’s but a taste of the excellence:

This entry was posted in Racism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • BillAndersoot

    Sirota spends his time trying to ingratiate himself with the far left. He’d love to pick up a sycophantic following, a la Greenwald. He just needs to get a little crazier…

    • ChrisAndersen

      Sirota was kind of the proto-Greenwald. Just as much of a self-promoter, but no where near as “entertaining” for the masses who enjoy that kind of thing.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Sirota is Greenwald without the big pile of facts. Greenwald tends to overstate and draw overly sweeping conclusions about those facts, but at least that’s where he starts. Sirota is just bluster, attitude, and teeth.

        • first last

          You left out “and selectively omits other key facts if they contradict his narrative”.

    • JarekAF

      Sirota spends his time trying to ingratiate himself with the far left.

      What do you define as the far left? Anyone disagrees with Obama from the left?

      • BillAndersoot

        I define the far left as the far left. You know, like “the far left”. As in “the far left”. Often referred to as “the far left”. The leftest of the left. Defined in the dictionary as: “Radically or extremely liberal. The highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics.” Is this making any sense to you, or must everything be somehow related to peoples’ attitudes toward President Obama?

        • JarekAF

          You said: He’s trying to ingratiate himself with the far left

          So I wanted to know what you meant by the far left since it isn’t exactly a precise term.

          Is this making any sense to you, or must everything be somehow related to a person’s opinion of President Obama?

          You tell me. I asked a simple question. Anything to the left of Obama could be one person’s definition. But you’d rather talk gibberish then explain what your meant. Fine by me.

          • BillAndersoot

            If you want to call a concise definition taken straight from the dictionary “gibberish” I guess that’s up to you. It makes discussion rather difficult if one party refuses to accept a generally accepted reference, however. In fact, your question was more than just simple. It was loaded as well.

          • JarekAF

            I said precise, not concise. I asked you what you meant by it. And the definitions you proffered were very vague.

            And yes, this is gibberish: I define the far left as the far left. You know, like “the far left”. As in “the far left”. Often referred to as “the far left”. The leftest of the left.

            I just wanted to know what policies you believe makes someone/something “Far Left.” Just saying “on the left, or very left” a bunch of times, isn’t particularly illuminating.

            So, for example, I’m dismayed by Obama’s immigration policy because he’s deported record numbers and broken up record numbers of families. He claims they only focus on “criminals” but many critics disagree. See documentary here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/lost-in-detention/

            I also am dismayed with his war on drugs policy: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/the-pot-republic-social-issues/amidst-federal-crackdown-connecticut-marijuana-bill-gains-traction/

            So, I’m just wondering, are those views, in your opinion, the far left, and if so, what’s wrong with that?

            Aren’t those positions consistent with mainstream liberal thinking, albeit, not consistent with the Obama administration?

            I’m also angry about the lack of torture prosecutions. And I frequently get told that that view is the far left and we should just shut up about it and the 100+ homicides in captivity during the Bush era.

          • BillAndersoot

            Yeah, I get it. You want to discuss Obama and you want to use my comment about Sirota as a springboard to get into a discussion about his policies. Have at it. Just with someone else, please. Thanks.

          • JarekAF

            Not really. Just calling you out on your meaningless “far left” statement, which you were utterly unable to articulate.

            Far left, as in, the far left, which is at the furthest end of the left.

          • BillAndersoot

            Yeah, what you don’t seem to understand is that I don’t owe you an explanation. You just want to use me as your proxy punching bag so you can deliver your stale, hackneyed monologue about whatever frustrations you’re feeling at the moment. Which is why I’m not playing. I’ve done this one before. Feel free to deliver your talking points, though. Just don’t expect me to respond.

          • JarekAF

            No it’s cool. I really just wanted to understand what your initial comment meant. I guess you want to keep it a secret.

  • Kerry Reid

    To call Sirota a douchebag is an insult to douches.

    • Norbrook

      True. Douches serve a useful function, unlike Sirota.

  • Plantsmantx

    This is very much like Goldie Taylor typing “Open season” on Twitter just after the Zimmerman verdict, and your mirror images on the right claiming that she meant “open season” on whites.

  • first last

    Al-Awlaki is Zimmerman (self-appointed, uses violence to enforce a code of conduct on everyone around him).

    The people on the airplanes were Trayvon Martin (innocent by any normal standard but guilty by al-Awlaki’s personal standards).

    Obama is the police (if they had shown up in time to stop Zimmerman from killing Martin).

    That’s a much more accurate analogy.

  • js hooper

    Is anyone surprised by this?Like I’ve said before, Sirota and his ilk go out of their way to agitate black people. I’ve already seen firebaggers and Paultards comparing Snowden to a runaway slave and Pres. Obama to a slave catcher… So Sirota hasn’t even gotten as offensive as he can get yet.

    • BillAndersoot

      Sad to say, when Salon published Sirota’s idiotic “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American” piece, it was already long past my last straw. David Sirota has made a career of making David Sirota look foolish. Just another example.

    • beulahmo

      YES! He goes out of his way to agitate black people. He KNOWS damn well what he’s doing, and he knows black people’s feelings are terribly raw right now over the Zimmerman acquittal. And he KNOWS how it feels for them to see lefties nodding in agreement with his ridiculous premise that Obama is the world’s Zimmerman. He’s a passive-aggressively vicious motherfucker.

    • Lamashtar

      I don’t know what to think. I’ve heard stuff about white liberals being racist before, and I assumed it was just the ignorance of privilege. But this is starting to seem deliberately racist. Like when the right wingnuts are racist.

  • Badgerite

    Here’s the thing. The Vietnamese didn’t attack Washington or New York. There is a difference between opposing the War in Vietnam and opposing this countries ongoing war with Al Queda. Al Queda struck first, often and without regard to human life. They are not fighting for the self determination of a people. They are fighting for a repressive interpretation of a religious ideology.

    • JarekAF

      And Abdulrahman Awlakwi Jr. and the countless other people we kill have never attacked the United States either.

      And safe to say, if MLK were around, he’d be on team Sirota here. But the willingness of so many to conflate “the terrorists” with “innocent muslims” we kill, makes Sirota’s point. And Cornell West’s point as well.

      • Claude Weaver

        No it is not “safe to say” that. That is putting words in MLK’s mouth, and the last person who should be doing that is a well-off white male who feels himself required to tell minorities how to feel about themselves and others. That is what is offensive about this. Saying Sirota is like MLK or that Al-Awlaki is like Trayvon in this situation is like saying Mitt Romney is like Abraham Lincoln because both ran as Republicans.

        Despite whatever nonsense conspiracies are circling around in his head, Sirota is in no threat of being attacked by police dogs or blasted by water hoses simply for walking down a street. He is in no threat to being accosted by people who hate him because his skin is different, and even if he was, he can at least count on the police to treat his situation seriously.

        Sirota doesn’t give a damn about African-Americans or Muslims, he only cares about Sirota, and what can propel his brand. If the former were the case, he would be aware of how utterly stupid he sounds making such proclamations like the one above.

        • JarekAF

          Ok, you’ve entered unhinged rant mode. Sirota isn’t like MLK. That’s crazy. But to say MLK would oppose signature strikes, which are drone strikes based on mere suspicion of wrong doing — that should be incredibly obvious.

          Cornell West made the same exact point as Sirota. Is he White privilege too?

          • Claude Weaver

            I can critique his motives all I want when he does the same. And when he compares the President of the United States to a trigger-happy neighborhood watch volunteer in both demeanor and motivation, I count that as being the same. And no, Conrell West doesn’t get to shove words into MLK’s mouth anymore than anyone else. Hell, I could say Jesus wouldn’t like drones strikes, but I don’t because I don’t talk for anybody else, especially when they aren’t around to make their own points for themselves.

            Do I have a problem with the drone program and the War on Terror? Yes. But I also acknowledge the realities of the situation. There is only so much we can do to neutralize threats against the US. And considering all the drama with the NSA thanks to Greenwald, even the few nonlethal things done are considered too far. So, yes, Obama uses drone strikes to reduce American casualties. I don’t see any recommendations to address this. Do we send Seal Team Six after every target? People would die regardless, so how is this somehow a superior option? How do we learn who is an active threat and who isn’t, if we aren’t allowed to do even the most basic recon and espionage? How do we separate those threats from innocents, when their whole MO is targeting noncombatants with impunity, including their own? Besides a generic “can’t we all get along?” what exactly is their solution besides “impeach Obama”?

            And, once again, this could be resolved quite easily if Congress would repeal the AUMF and Patriot Act. But no mention of them, unless it is to recommend impeachment. And nobody in Congress is going to take the initiative, because they don’t want to commit career suicide/give up power for THEIR guy to use when he gets in.

            That is why I have such a problem with this view. It is so laser-focused on the president, like he is some uberpowerful dictator who can start and end wars, with a wave of his hand, instead of the head of one part of a tripartite system. He is there to enforce the laws Congress passes. He cannot refuse to do that. If anyone wants to fix anything, they have to focus on Congress, the seat of legislative and representative power. But tell Sirota et al anything like that, and it is immediately dismissed. As far as I have seen, there is this central idea that Obama is indeed worse thing to ever happen to America and must be removed from “power”.

            As far as the Al-Awlaki point, it is sad that people uninvolved with his actions had to be hurt. But my sympathy and outrage does have a hierarchy, and seeing people losing their rights inside the border of my own country is a bit more important to me than a guy who willingly left the country and plotted terrorist attacks against him. That is the sad truth. That is reality. I wish I could pretend to give an equal damn like Sirota, but I don’t believe in the ideologically purity myth he does.

          • JarekAF

            I’m sorry but you’re factual recitation of the drone strikes are wrong.

            Nobody forced Obama to kill Awlawki the 16 year old American boy. And your excusing for it is pathetic. Obama killed an American boy for no reason. At least George Zimmerman acted in self-defense at the time he fired the gun. Abdulrahman was sitting in an outdoor restaurant. He was never accused of anything.

            You are like Zimmerman in how you just assume that since he’s an arab/muslim, he probably did something wrong. You’re blinded by your privilege.

            Seriously, Obama had to kill a 16 year old American child, otherwise he would’ve been impeached. Just pathetic.

            No black male should be viewed as a thug, just because of their appearance, and Arabs and Muslims shouldn’t be viewed as terrorists, solely because of their ethnicity/religion.

            Read this form today’s NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=1&