http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/10/MNGMEP5Q251.DTL<b>
Backlash grows over shock jock Imus' rant
Apology, suspension not enough, critics say</b>

Don Imus, the nationally syndicated shock jock who called members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed ho's," was suspended for two weeks Monday by his employers, CBS Radio and MSNBC. But a growing chorus of civil rights leaders and media critics argue that suspension is not sufficient and that Imus should be permanently removed from his chair.

Imus, whose radio show is heard locally on KVON-AM (1440), based in Napa, and is simulcast on the MSNBC cable network, is renowned for making racist, sexist and generally tasteless remarks. He unleashed a fury last week when, while watching highlights from the women's NCAA championship game, Imus and his studio cohorts riffed on the women's appearance, comparing them to tattooed, male players.

"He touched every hot rail," said Harry Edwards, professor emeritus at UC Berkeley and a longtime sports consultant, who said Imus should be fired and his show canceled. "There's the issue of black women being demeaned for their appearance and their hair, the belittling of their basic dignity. There's the issue of black women's sensuality and sexuality and promiscuity. ... Imus hit them all. The only thing he left out was to drop an n-bomb."

Imus' show, which combines often rude and freewheeling humor with appearances by such prominent political and media figures as Bill Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell, draws an estimated 2.5 million listeners nationwide per week, according to CBS Radio. The audience for the MSNBC television show has grown to 361,000 viewers per day, up 39 percent from last year.

Bob Butler, a KCBS freelance reporter and president of the Bay Area Black Journalists Association, said national members were weighing options that ranged from refusing to appear on the Imus show to boycotting the show's advertisers.

Imus spent part of Monday engaged in damage control. On the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show just hours before his suspension, Imus sounded deferential, repeatedly calling the host "Sir," and conceded that his comments about the Rutgers team were not funny. Still, he denied they were racist. "Our agenda is to be funny," Imus told Sharpton. "Sometimes we go too far, and sometimes we go way too far."

The Rev. Jesse Jackson led a protest demanding his dismissal in front of the NBC offices in Chicago, one of several he plans to hold around the country. Rutgers University President Richard McCormick denounced Imus' comments as "extremely hurtful" and said the college expected Imus' employers to take the matter seriously.

Previous slurs by Don Imus

March 16: Imus' producer Bernard McGuirk, while performing "in character," refers to Sen. Barack Obama as a "young colored fellah." He later refers to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch."

November 2006: Imus calls out his "Jewish management" at CBS Radio as "money-grubbing bastards."

November 2004: During Yasser Arafat's funeral, Imus producer Sid Rosenberg calls the Palestinian people "stinking animals" and suggests, "They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now."

1998: A reporter claims Imus called PBS commentator Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady," but Imus later denies he uttered the remark.I bet if he were a black guy who made a racial slur against a white guy, he'd be receiving some medal from a black group, instead of being censored.

The whole political correctness/indecency frenzy that has hit the American airwaves of late is disturbing.

< sarcasm on >
Yeah, it's horrible how some people insist on other people not using racial/gender slurs on public air waves. What has become of this great nation?

Actually, what I find funny is how showing a nipple results in horrible fines, saying the slang word for excrement. Yet you can call female atheletes "nappy headed 'hos" and there is no censorship other than what people do voluntarily.

If the guy were Black, you would think nothing of it.

Nor would the so-called Black Community.

Now, I would not imagine, say, Barak Obama or Bill Cosby saying it, I could imagine just about any other black entertainer saying it.



But one must look at the financial benefits of such a society.
Orthopedic surgeons are going to become much more in demand if this trend continues, damn near flying off the leg knee jerking is going to be big business to treat.

Yeah, it's horrible how some people insist on other people not using racial/gender slurs on public air waves. What has become of this great nation?It is horrible. No one is forcing you to listen to a program hosted by a known loose cannon. You can always turn the dial, and there will always be a large market for the purified and censored speech you thin-skinned types crave.

The same could be said for Janet Jackson flashing her nipple. Just change the channel.

I don't understand why something everyone posseses in pairs is so verboten yet expressing hateful racial slurs is ok.

It isn't horrible. It is wonderful.
We've gotten to the point where people broadcasting racial hatred are punished by the people sponsoring them. The government isn't even involved. Contrast that to 60 years ago and people said that sort of stuff all the time and if you objected you'd be called a "N*ger lover" and likely beaten to a pulp and have a cross burned on your front lawn.

Vote with your feet. or well your ears.

If you don't like it dont listen.

FCC needs to go, far outlived its purpose

Many entertainers use abusive language for comedy and they know that they can go too far. They know there is a line and beyond that line the abusive language becomes simply abuse. Seems like this guy crossed the line.

If he can't tell the difference between insulting and funny then he shouldn't be employed to be a shock jock or any other broadcaster. Perhaps the radio station have realised that too.

there is no line between insulting and funny, its different for different people, and for most its a blur.

If people are finding someone insulting they dont have to listen, and if no one listens to media personalities, then they will get fired cause they wont be making money, however.

unfortunately however since the way our airwaves are regulated the government probalby can legally fine or whatever, which needs to change, the purpose of the FCC in terms of censorship of indecent things is far outdated today with so many different channels and markets

The FCC should be stripped entirely of its power to fine/punish people based on "objectionable" content. It's censorship, plain and simple. If people can't figure out how to change the channel they should be euthanized.

The same could be said for Janet Jackson flashing her nipple. Just change the channel.You're preaching to the choir, Panamah.We've gotten to the point where people broadcasting racial hatred are punished by the people sponsoring them.Yes, if they're white. If they're a minority, they can unleash a slur every 10 seconds and be applauded. Even slurs against other races.

It's not even subject matter censorship, it's forced politically correct viewpoint censorship.

Beyond the obvious that this guy is a jack ass. I believe he is getting exactly what he wants out of it. Publicity. Any publicity is good publicity.

I strongly believe one shouldn't even attempt to legislate morality. Let the idiots hang themselves. Its the downside of freedom. If everyone is made to act in a certain way by law, that isn't choice. Its not freedom.

Everyone knows this guy is an idiot. He should disappear into obscurity and be forgotten. White, black, yellow, purple. It shouldn't matter. What he said was stupid and from what I can tell, not even close to accurate.

Isn't Don Imus is the "father" of the trash radio?

If so it maybe the beginning of the end for this style of radio (I can alway hope, as the radio via internet isn't regulated for now, just hard to get money from it, for now).

Eridalafar

Imus is the Liberal version of Limbaugh and they're trying to get rid of him for the same reason that they try to get rid of Rush each time he puts his foot in his mouth - they annoy the right amount of people who are more than willing to try and throw them into the sharks.

This *is* the free market at work. You piss off your advertisers and sponsors, they suspend you. It seems like all you people that hate regulation should love this.

And if Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton should start slinging around racial slurs at their own people, or another group, let the same thing happen.

This *is* the free market at work. You piss off your advertisers and sponsors, they suspend you. It seems like all you people that hate regulation should love this.
If the whiners were content to just do that then there wouldn't be a problem. Sadly, many of the people/groups who complain to the station and advertisers also lobby for the FCC to censure content. Groups like The Parents Television Council (http://www.parentstv.org/) ("Because our Children are Watching") and Focus on the Family relentlessly push the FCC towards heavier oversight.

Right, but they're not writing to the FCC for things like Imus said. It's perfectly ok in the government's idea of morality to call female atheletes "Nappy headed hos". The religious right is probably cheering on Imus while spamming the FCC with with outrage over an exposed nipple.

Right, but they're not writing to the FCC for things like Imus said.
Tuning out: Sharpton says FCC should fire Imus (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=sports&id=5191400)

If you google +FCC +Imus (http://www.google.com/search?q=%2bFCC+%2bimus)you can find lots of cases were people are suggesting that the FCC should censor Imus.

Well, logically if the FCC is regulating offensive content then why wouldn't they regulate crap like this too?

Personally I'd rather the FCC have less involvement rather than more. But since they've grown more powerful and oppressive during the Bush admin. why not focus on stuff like this rather than just things of a sexual nature?

But since they've grown more powerful and oppressive during the Bush admin. why not focus on stuff like this rather than just things of a sexual nature?

Duh, because sex is bad and hate is good. Pay attention, Pan! :P

Well, logically if the FCC is regulating offensive content then why wouldn't they regulate crap like this too?

Personally I'd rather the FCC have less involvement rather than more. But since they've grown more powerful and oppressive during the Bush admin. why not focus on stuff like this rather than just things of a sexual nature?


Because that would aquiesence to the idea that the FCC should interfere with content.

The only appropriate response is to condemn the FCC for interference, be it hate speech or nipples.

Well, logically if the FCC is regulating offensive content then why wouldn't they regulate crap like this too?
They shouldn't be regulating content at all.

Personally I'd rather the FCC have less involvement rather than more.
I completely agree. Let them regulate broadcast frequencies and get them out of the business of judging content.

I like what has happened. Advertisers are speaking with their dollars and witholding advertising from his show. Which is how it should be. If you don't like a thing, don't help it along by rewarding it.

In my view, and its totally an opinion and we all know what is said about those, the FCC should be regulating frequency allocation and not what is actually on said frequencies. That also means, they shouldn't be held responsible if something offensive comes over the airwaves at 204.7 Mhz.

So the initial ire was directed at "political correctness" not the FCC.

Frankly, I hate the term. But here's what Wikipedia says (first couple of paragraphs anyway). The entire article is worthy of a read.
(often abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. A text that conforms to the alleged ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct.

The term "political correctness" is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense.[1] However, terms such as inclusive language and civility are often used to praise language that is seen by critics as "politically correct". [2],[3]. Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern about the dilution of freedom of speech, intolerance of language, and the avoidance of a discussion of social problems.

The existence of PC has been alleged and denounced by conservative, liberal, and other commentators.[2] The term itself and its usage, however, is hotly contested. Some commentators, usually on the political left, have argued that the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender.[3]

I agree with that last bit. :)

the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit what they consider progressive social changePolitical correctness is to progressive social change, as bravado is to courage.

If we had undergone true progressive social change, we would have had no need for political correctness on the issue, and this discussion would have been rendered moot.

I like what has happened. Advertisers are speaking with their dollars and witholding advertising from his show. Which is how it should be.Are the advertisers withholding dollars because they are outraged, because they think their customers will be outraged, or because they think their customers will think that they should be outraged?

I don't think the way it's playing out is how it should be.

Political correctness is to progressive social change, as bravado is to courage.

If we had undergone true progressive social change, we would have had no need for political correctness on the issue, and this discussion would have been rendered moot.

Maybe you were born yesterday but over the course of my lifetime I've seen enormous social change.

Some commentators argue that the term "political correctness" was engineered by American conservatives around 1980 as a way to reframe political arguments in the United States. According to Hutton:

"Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s as part of its demolition of American liberalism....What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism - by levelling the charge of political correctness against its exponents - they could discredit the whole political project."[21]

Such commentators say that there never was a "Political Correctness movement" in the United States, and that many who use the term are attempting to distract attention from substantive debates over discrimination and unequal treatment based on race, class, and gender (Messer-Davidow 1993, 1994; Schultz 1993; Lauter 1995; Scatamburlo 1998; Glassner 1999). Similarly, Polly Toynbee has argued that "the phrase is an empty rightwing smear designed only to elevate its user".[22]

That's what I think, although I can't lay claim to it. :)

To me saying "political correctness" is about the same as saying, "Whaaaa! I can't call people racial/sexual/gender epithets without someone pointing out how wrong it is."

Maybe you were born yesterday but over the course of my lifetime I've seen enormous social change.Just because political correctness is not a true indication of social change, does not mean that there has been no social change.To me saying "political correctness" is about the same as saying, "Whaaaa! I can't call people racial/sexual/gender epithets without someone pointing out how wrong it is."People gravitate towards political correctness because they think it will make people like them. Political correctness is not an indicator of enlightenment or racial tolerance, just one of insecurity.

I guess "insecurity" motivates a lot of people to go to the gym, take showers, use deodorant, learn to salsa dance and every other social skill that people have. Learning to reign in my temper and baser urges, like clubbing people on the head when they thwart my childish impulses, makes people like me.

I'm failing to see where civility and respect for others is such a horrible thing and should be suppressed.

I'm failing to see where civility and respect for others is such a horrible thing and should be suppressed.First, it has nothing to do with civility, or respect (not even for yourself). You can be civil and respectful and NOT politically correct, and vice versa.

Second, political correctness is a horrible thing when it's used as an excuse to trample on other, more important rights, such as the right to voice your opinion. Opinions should not be silenced merely because they are unpopular, and because you think silencing them will make people like you more.

Of course, the corollary is that you should be free to voice your own political correctness, to attempt to make people like you, so long as you respect and are civil towards those with opposing opinions.

I like what has happened. Advertisers are speaking with their dollars and witholding advertising from his show. Which is how it should be. If you don't like a thing, don't help it along by rewarding it.

Absolutely. That should be the only form of censorship that he must be forced to endure. It is how it SHOULD be.

And then he is perfectly able to take all of his listeners to a satellite radio station, where consumers pay directly for his content. And they will pay him well.

Then the advertisers will have to find some other jock to patronize, say Al Franken. Hell, they could patronize Al Sharpton all they like.

overzealous political correctness does happen; its a reality.

Saying that its just the province of racist and sexist people to use the term is just a way to dismiss their claims by attacking them.

Its a new tactic i see more and more....

Dont agree with someone? Call them racist or sexist!

Beside often being inaccurate, its watering down the terms of what racism and sexism.

overzealous political correctness does happen; its a reality.Yep, and now the herd is all stampeding in that direction, afraid that if they get left behind, no one will like them. Or even worse, they'll be labeled an evil bigot or sexist because they didn't take their turn to flog the guy:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/11/entertainment/e171143D92.DTLMSNBC said Wednesday it will drop its simulcast of the "Imus in the Morning" radio program, responding to growing outrage about the radio host's racial slur against the Rutgers women's basketball team.

MSNBC's action came after a growing list of sponsors — including American Express Co., Sprint Nextel Corp., Staples Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., and General Motors Corp. — said they were pulling ads from Imus' show for the indefinite future.Fyyr is way off, this is most certainly NOT the way it should be. Knee jerk, herd mentality lynchings aren't an appropriate form of censorship.

CBS will now be too afraid to NOT fire the guy, even though they would not have done so without the herd's stampede. And his replacement is going to be a purified, sanitized spokesperson who makes sure to repeat the party line and absolutely nothing else. Or maybe a black guy, who can insult minorities all day long and get away with it, because that's not politically incorrect.

I've not heard any of these shows, but I suppose some of you have, and that some of you are also able to answer two simple yes/no questions:

-IS- it racist?
-IS- it sexist?

I am blatantly assuming that those who have heard the show are able to distinguish between crude humour and racism. (Aka "if he said it about your sister, would you hit him or giggle?")

I've not heard any of these shows, but I suppose some of you have, and that some of you are also able to answer two simple yes/no questions:

-IS- it racist?
-IS- it sexist?
Imus is a "shock jock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock)" so he tends to try to say things that will get a rise out of people. Why does it matter?

I guess where I differ from the right wing is that I'd much rather not having someone spout sexist/racist/gay-hating crap, even if it is supposed to be funny, on public air waves, than I care about covering up nipples. I mean, I wouldn't my kid to get the impression it is ok to call female atheletes "nappy headed hos".

If people want to listen to that crap, they should do it on sattelite radio.

Imus is a "shock jock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock)" so he tends to try to say things that will get a rise out of people. Why does it matter?

You don't think the answer to those questions matter when making your mind up on wether or not it's a good idea to take him off the air?

Short of him inciting violence, whether or not I think he should be taken off air is illrelevant.

If theres a demand for someone, they should be on the air.

If there isn't, they should be off.

Gov should stay out

You don't think the answer to those questions matter when making your mind up on wether or not it's a good idea to take him off the air?
As far as the government being involved in the decision, no. I'm all for the station/network doing dumping asshole DJs or their advertisers forcing them to do so.

When you get right down to it, there is a value to people voicing asinine opinions -- it gives listeners a chance to hear them and make up their own minds on the subject. As an example, Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) and his spawn have used their free speech rights to spew some of the most vile hate and bigotry imaginable and I think that rather than bringing over people to their viewpoint it has pushed people to be more tolerant. People see him, recognize that he is an asshole, associate his opinions with assholes, and decide they don't want to be like him.

I guess where I differ from the right wing is that I'd much rather not having someone spout sexist/racist/gay-hating crap, even if it is supposed to be funny, on public air waves, than I care about covering up nipples.
The government shouldn't be involved in censoring either.

I mean, I wouldn't my kid to get the impression it is ok to call female atheletes "nappy headed hos".
Do you really think that's the impression that your kid would come away with? Look at what has happened to Imus as a result of what he said -- he has been lambasted in the court of popular opinion as a sexist, racist pig. I think your kid would learn quite a different lesson.

I guess where I differ from the right wing is that I'd much rather not having someone spout sexist/racist/gay-hating crap, even if it is supposed to be funny, on public air waves, than I care about covering up nipples. I mean, I wouldn't my kid to get the impression it is ok to call female atheletes "nappy headed hos".

If people want to listen to that crap, they should do it on sattelite radio.

Wrong answer.

If people don't want to listen to Don Imus, who is known for his ridiculous views and statements, they should not listen to him.

Do you really think that's the impression that your kid would come away with? Look at what has happened to Imus as a result of what he said -- he has been lambasted in the court of popular opinion as a sexist, racist pig. I think your kid would learn quite a different lesson.
Yeah, the end result has been good. No complaints from me. But only so long as the hypothetical kid sees the result of that. If we're going to have government censorship, then it should be of this kind of stuff. If not, then I think the way it is being handled is pretty good.

As far as the government being involved in the decision, no. I'm all for the station/network doing dumping asshole DJs or their advertisers forcing them to do so.

That's what I meant - do you think YOUR answer to my questions matter when YOU decide if you agree with the station/advertisers or not?

I guess where I differ from the right wing is that I'd much rather not having someone spout sexist/racist/gay-hating crap, even if it is supposed to be funny, on public air waves, than I care about covering up nipples. I mean, I wouldn't my kid to get the impression it is ok to call female atheletes "nappy headed hos".You are just as bad as the puritanical religious zealots who get their panties in a bunch over nipples. You are trying to impose YOUR political correctness and values on the entire world.

If you don't want your kid to get the impression that racial slurs are OK, teach him it's not OK. Or just turn the dial. Don't twist my arm and make the decision for me.

By approving knee jerk, herd mentality responses to situations like this, you are creating a dangerous precedent that censorship is OK so long as it's fashionable or popular.

Oh and as I predicted, CBS fired the guy (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/12/entertainment/e134757D70.DTL), with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (bigots themselves) rallying at their doorstep. I knew CBS wouldn't want the herd to leave them behind in the stampede.

You are just as bad as the puritanical religious zealots who get their panties in a bunch over nipples. You are trying to impose YOUR political correctness and values on the entire world.

I don't think it's just Panamah that considers abusive racist jokes unsuitable for the airwaves. From the reports given, I don't see that this guy was making insightful comedy about race. He was just abusing people based on demeaning racial and sexual stereotypes. If a salesman at a department store was being insultingly racist he would get sacked. Why should a DJ get preferential treatment if he can't sell his show to the larger audience because of bigotry?

By approving knee jerk, herd mentality responses to situations like this, you are creating a dangerous precedent that censorship is OK so long as it's fashionable or popular.

Censorship is always about popular morality. How else do you think it works?

I don't think it's just Panamah that considers abusive racist jokes unsuitable for the airwaves.Let ME make that decision. Don't make it for me because you think people will like you more if you do.Censorship is always about popular morality. How else do you think it works?Censorship should have little to no role in a free society. The mere thought of unpopular minority views being censored by the rabid majority should be anathema to us.

CBS Fires Don Imus From Radio Show (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4710173.html)

By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

NEW YORK — CBS fired Don Imus from his radio program Thursday, the finale to a stunning fall for one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters.

Imus initially was given a two-week suspension for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" on the air last week, but outrage continued to grow and advertisers bolted from his CBS radio show and its MSNBC simulcast.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

[More... (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4710173.html)]

Let ME make that decision. Don't make it for me because you think people will like you more if you do.

I don't care if YOU think racism is ok or if YOU think that opposing racism is a populist bandwagon of no real purpose. Racism is still wrong.

Censorship should have little to no role in a free society. The mere thought of unpopular minority views being censored by the rabid majority should be anathema

Ok have a rant about free speech and censorship. Now get back to my point. If a salesman for a department store used racist and sexist abuse he/she would be sacked as it would affect sales. Why should a DJ for a radio station not be sacked when his racist and sexist abuse is clearly affecting advertising sales?

Fyyr is way off, this is most certainly NOT the way it should be. Knee jerk, herd mentality lynchings aren't an appropriate form of censorship.


Withdrawal of sponsorship or patronage is hardly a lynching.

One is not continuing to pay an artist for the work that you do not like anymore.

The other is an impromptu execution by hanging.


You, despite your infinite wisdom, should not have the power to force me(or any sponsor) to pay someone that I don't want to pay for any longer. You(FCC) already have the power to fine the artist, which is even more wrong.

I don't care if YOU think racism is ok or if YOU think that opposing racism is a populist bandwagon of no real purpose. Racism is still wrong.So turn the dial. Don't force your beliefs on me, as religious zealots try to do.If a salesman for a department store used racist and sexist <u>abuse</u> he/she would be sacked as it would affect sales. Why should a DJ for a radio station not be sacked when his racist and sexist <u>abuse</u> is clearly affecting advertising sales?Expressing one's opinion is NOT abuse. Your "if you say something I don't like, you're abusing me" rule is even more dangerous than Panamah's "free speech, but only if you're in the majority" rule.

That said, your scenarios have two major differences. First, expressing personal opinions is the job of a radio celebrity, but not of a salesman (outside of those relating to his products). Second, the overall idea-suppressing effect of restricting the speech of a radio celebrity with a wide audience is huge, whereas the effect of restricting a salesman, who only works one-on-one with customers, is tiny.

Withdrawal of sponsorship or patronage is hardly a lynching.It's the same mob mentality: a stampeding herd all following one another without independently thinking about where they're going, because they're afraid to be left behind.

If the first advertiser had not withdrawn support, the others would not have either. If MSNBC had not dropped the program, CBS would not have fired the guy. It's a mindless domino effect.

Mob mentality should not govern free speech restrictions any more than it should govern criminal punishments.

Imus is free to buy a radio channel if he likes.

When the channel he broadcasts on does not belong to him, the owners of that channel control his speech.

You can't come to my press that I own and demand to print your message.


Now the really cool thing is, that in a free country, you and I can agree to boycott all of the advertisers and the erroneous channels.

I promise you, I swear to you, that I will never ever buy Bigelow Teas. I should have that right as well(just as they should have the right to not be forced to pay Imus), Tuda, you, and your fascist ideals, should not be able to force me to buy tea.

When the channel he broadcasts on does not belong to him, the owners of that channel control his speech.Just because some has the right to do something stupid, doesn't mean that it's not stupid.

I'm not saying they can't fire him, or that the advertisers can't pull the advertising, or that MSNBC can't drop the program. I'm saying they shouldn't, and they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

Imus is free to buy a radio channel if he likes.

Hmm. what is the going rate for a radio channel these days? I strongly doubt it is within easy reach of even a rich dj.
The reason why access to printing presses (as well as other means to communicate) was so strongly defended by laws and constitutions is because for most people the only way to have their opinion heard is through somebody else's media. That means those media must be reasonably accessible to people.
Commercial censorship is still censorship. Politically correctness censorship is still censorship. A radio station owner refusing to broadcast dissenting opinions is still commiting censorship, even if the law gives him every right to do so.


You can't come to my press that I own and demand to print your message.


True, but I must be reasonably able to expect somebody will allow my message to be printed. And some venue to have the message published must reasonably exist too.
It is why the Dutch law explicitly requires towns to set aside bulletin boards or other surfaces that anybody can affix his or her posters and pamflets too, and even allows that if such areas are not available it is not a crime or misdemeanour to use the surface of any public building as long as it does not interfere with safety of function of that building.


Tuda, you, and your fascist ideals, should not be able to force me to buy tea.

*sneaks up behind Fyrr and pins a paper on his back with the word 'Godwin' written on it, then runs off trying to smother her mad giggles*


Eri

(p.s. You can with some justification accuse Tuda of promoting a dictatorial agenda, but that does not make him a fascist nor make his ideas so. And though I dislike to have to agree with him on this, he does have a point that the decisions by companies to rally against this DJ and what he said has less to do with their personal opinion and a great deal more with caving in to public opinion and the fear of appearing to support his words. The danger to free speech here is not in firing that DJ for what he said, but in how the people are adopting a 'if you do not oppose something absolutely then you must support it' attitude. It is not fundamentally different from the way Bush demanded unquestioning support of his policies by tieing opposition to everything negative he could like being unpatriottic, suggestion of supporting terrorist and threatening the american soldiers. In both cases free speech was 'chilled' by fear of reprisals without any agency ever resorting to active censorship. The fear did their work for them)

So turn the dial. Don't force your beliefs on me, as religious zealots try to do.

Bigotry is not just a belief but something that has real victims. Sexism and racism would be tolerated to some degree if they did not make people's lives worse. By turning a blind eye you condone bigotry and perpetuate it.

The vicitms of this bigotry are the sportsl team, who want to be treated as respected sportswomen. They might want sport scholarships or endorsements or professional contracts. Allowing widespread bigotry which demeans their status will affect their sporting careers.

Hmm. what is the going rate for a radio channel these days? I strongly doubt it is within easy reach of even a rich dj.
Some of the DJs out there make boatloads of money. I did a quick search and found several radio stations for sale for under 500k. That wouldn't be much of an obstacle for Imus who was earning around 8 million a year.

Commercial censorship is still censorship. Politically correctness censorship is still censorship. A radio station owner refusing to broadcast dissenting opinions is still commiting censorship, even if the law gives him every right to do so.
If a radio station is privately owned then the owner(s) should have their own free speech rights. Part of those rights are not being compelled to voice someone else's opinion. It's sad (but understandable) that their own opinion it frequently nothing more than whatever makes them the most money.

It is why the Dutch law explicitly requires towns to set aside bulletin boards or other surfaces that anybody can affix his or her posters and pamflets too, and even allows that if such areas are not available it is not a crime or misdemeanour to use the surface of any public building as long as it does not interfere with safety of function of that building.
"There are two kinds of people I can't stand. Those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch."

The danger to free speech here is not in firing that DJ for what he said, but in how the people are adopting a 'if you do not oppose something absolutely then you must support it' attitude.
I agree. It's a sleazy way to frame the debate but it's effective when your audience thrives on being outraged and indignant.

If the hoards of people who jumped on the fire Imus bandwagon really gave a sh1t about helping the plight of black women they'd level some of their outrage at the rappers who say far worse things about women and have a lot more influence on them than an old white guy.

Just because some has the right to do something stupid, doesn't mean that it's not stupid.

I'm not saying they can't fire him, or that the advertisers can't pull the advertising, or that MSNBC can't drop the program. I'm saying they shouldn't, and they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.
*puzzle* It's so hard to make you happy, Tuda.
Then you must be saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott advertisers who sponsor the show that offends them?

If the hoards of people who jumped on the fire Imus bandwagon really gave a sh1t about helping the plight of black women they'd level some of their outrage at the rappers who say far worse things about women and have a lot more influence on them than an old white guy.
Hopefully they will. That was brought up on one of the main TV news stations last night. I don't listen to rap but I think there's probably a difference between a guy calling his woman a 'ho and someone labeling an entire sports team that, essentially calling all teenage black women hos.

Like I have already writen, he can create his own radio on the internet if he have it so huge fellowship. It only ask for some technical knowledge and most of the current administration don't have any power on it.

Look at Jeff Fillion, one of the trash radio DJ in Quebec that have make his radio to lost it licence to diffuse because of his speach. And he have done exactly that, creating his own internet radio.

Link to his station (in french only): www.radiopirate.com/

Some summary )a lot of details is lost in this, but the general sens is ok): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Fillion

I am not doing his publicity, just show how the current trash radio may elvolve, with most of other the radical movements will probably use. And it don't take a genius to see what will be the next action of the governement too.

Eridalafar

I don't listen to rap but I think there's probably a difference between a guy calling his woman a 'ho and someone labeling an entire sports team that, essentially calling all teenage black women hos.
Most Gangsta Rap goes well beyond a guy calling his woman a ho. More often than not it portrays women in general as being nothing more than materialistic sex objects to be dominated, used, and discarded (sometimes violently) by the rapper. Some of the rappers are actually quite talented musicians and that compounds the problem because people generally have a hard time separating the medium from the message.

Some of the DJs out there make boatloads of money. I did a quick search and found several radio stations for sale for under 500k. That wouldn't be much of an obstacle for Imus who was earning around 8 million a year.

I guess that is good, though I am not sure what range such radio stations have in their broadcasts. At least it is available and not out of financial range of anybody.


If a radio station is privately owned then the owner(s) should have their own free speech rights. Part of those rights are not being compelled to voice someone else's opinion. It's sad (but understandable) that their own opinion it frequently nothing more than whatever makes them the most money.

I know, and agree, that the owner of a radio station has every legal, and much moral, right to decide what is and is not broadcast by it. I probably should not have put as much emphasis on my statement that anybody who limits what can be said is commiting a form of censorship. It is more important for the principle than for the discussion of this particular case.


"There are two kinds of people I can't stand. Those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch."

*blinks*
*blinks again*
what prompted that remark?


I agree. It's a sleazy way to frame the debate but it's effective when your audience thrives on being outraged and indignant.


Sadly, if you aim at people's emotions you can get them to run in any direction you want. As soon as you can get a few of them moving the rest will follow.


If the hoards of people who jumped on the fire Imus bandwagon really gave a sh1t about helping the plight of black women they'd level some of their outrage at the rappers who say far worse things about women and have a lot more influence on them than an old white guy.

That I can fully agree with. I guess in the fine American tradition of litigation perhaps some organisation can sue those rappers on behalf of 100 million women for defamation, discrimination and inciting violence towards them ...
After all Aidon assures us that is how the system is supposed to work :)


Eri

*blinks*
*blinks again*
what prompted that remark?
It's nothing personal, I'm a knee-jerk film quoter who just watched Goldmember. In this case, I was set off by your reference to the Dutch.

That I can fully agree with. I guess in the fine American tradition of litigation perhaps some organisation can sue those rappers on behalf of 100 million women for defamation, discrimination and inciting violence towards them ...
Given that some of these guys have deep pockets I'm surprised that hasn't been tried yet.

Bigotry is not just a belief but something that has real victims. Sexism and racism would be tolerated to some degree if they did not make people's lives worse. By turning a blind eye you condone bigotry and perpetuate it.So basically you are saying, since unpopular opinions can be offensive to some, we should not only not repeat them ourselves, but also punish any others who repeat them.

The problem is that it's fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of free speech.The vicitms of this bigotry are the sportsl team, who want to be treated as respected sportswomen.People who are merely offended by opinions are not "victims" and do not need legal protection to not be offended.

Free speech necessarily entails speech that is going to offend someone, somewhere. If you can't tolerate being offended, go live in politically correct totalitarian land where no one can speak except in a manner consistent with the party line.

Then you must be saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott advertisers who sponsor the show that offends them?No, I'm saying people should sit down and think before making knee jerk, herd mentality decisions. If all the parties involved were forced to wait one month before acting, this whole incident would've blown over without need for any flagrant attacks on free speech.

Most Gangsta Rap goes well beyond a guy calling his woman a ho. More often than not it portrays women in general as being nothing more than materialistic sex objects to be dominated, used, and discarded (sometimes violently) by the rapper.But they're black, Klath, so they have not offended political correctness, and the politically correct fascists can leave them be without fear that other people won't like them for doing so.

Only white people offend political correctness, when they make even a veiled comment that could be interpreted as slightly demeaning to women, or a racial minority. Then, the politically correct fascists descend en masse, because if they don't, they're afraid that people won't like them and they'll be labeled as racists and bigots.

What was unconstitutional about what was done? No lawyers, no courts, an employer and advertisers and citizens all doing what was guaranteed to them in the constitution, complaining about something they didn't like.

And you'd force them to wait a month to exercise their freedom of speech? Why is Imus's freedom of speech more important than all the people who spoke out afterwards?

but I think there's probably a difference between a guy calling his woman a 'ho and someone labeling an entire sports team that, essentially calling all teenage black women hos.Wait, you're saying that hundreds of rappers making general demeaning statements about black women is OK because it's limited in scope, but a specific statement about a sports team is not OK because it automatically extends to all black women?

It astounds me, the tortured reasoning you politically correct types will come up with to defend your political correctness instead of just coming out and saying it.And you'd force them to wait a month to exercise their freedom of speech? Why is Imus's freedom of speech more important than all the people who spoke out afterwards?No, I'd force them to wait a month to exercise their knee jerk, herd mentality reaction. They could speak all they like in the interim. See, in a month's time, the herd will have gone back to grazing, or will have found some other reason to stampede, with this incident long forgotten. Then everyone will be happy, without having to destroy free speech.

Why is Imus's freedom of speech more important than all the people who spoke out afterwards?
Still waiting to hear your reasoning on this.

Still waiting to hear your reasoning on this.Eh? Look up 2 posts.

People who are merely offended by opinions are not "victims" and do not need legal protection to not be offended.

Of course they are. If a boss give his workers bigoted verbal abuse every day then there are legal consequences.

No, I'd force them to wait a month to exercise their knee jerk, herd mentality reaction.

I can some to this conclusion quite happily now, in a month's time, or in a year's time. I'm not in even in your country and I'm not in your herd.

Of course they are. If a boss give his workers bigoted verbal abuse every day then there are legal consequences.Only in the context of exercising control over them.

Random person X offending random person Y is NOT abuse.I can some to this conclusion quite happily now, in a month's time, or in a year's time.In a month's time -- probably even two weeks -- everyone will have forgotten about this incident, and the herd will certainly not come to the same conclusion.

Oh for eff's sake, tuda - "verbal abuse" is a pretty accepted term, and we all know what was meant by it. But if it makes you feel better, I'm sure we can rewrite the original statement which brought this derail on to:

If a salesman for a department store used racist and sexist language he/she would be sacked as it would affect sales. Why should a DJ for a radio station not be sacked when his racist and sexist language is clearly affecting advertising sales?

Happier? Ready to answer now?

Oh for eff's sake, tuda - "verbal abuse" is a pretty accepted term,But expressing one's opinion is NOT abuse. Verbal abuse is usually a product of a special relationship with unequal power and repeated incidents over time, and may not even involve a term on the politically correct hit list.

So yes, if Anka tries to do an end run around free speech protection by wedging unpopular speech into the totally different category of "abuse," I'm going to call him on it.If a salesman for a department store used racist and sexist language he/she would be sacked as it would affect sales. Why should a DJ for a radio station not be sacked when his racist and sexist language is clearly affecting advertising sales?I already answered this. Post #50 (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=223564&postcount=50).

So yes, if Anka tries to do an end run around free speech protection by wedging unpopular speech into the totally different category of "abuse," I'm going to call him on it.

I didn't mean it in any other context other than verbal abuse. When free speech is abusive then you take responsibility for what you've said and you're personally accountable for it. You don't get to trample over other people's rights just because you're using "free" speech.

So answer the question - if a salesman in a department store can get sacked for abusively language why should a DJ keep his job when he offends his (advertiser's) customers?

Eh? Look up 2 posts.
Right, you didn't explain why Imus's freedom of speech is more important than the people who exercised theirs by complaining about him. You just reiterrated your crazed rant about political correctness. It seems to me you're the one trying to impose censorship.

There was no freedom of speech issue here. He was free to speak and he did. The people who decided to stop advertising on his show were free to do so and they did. The people who objected to his content were free to object and they did so. The companies who carried his show were free to drop it and they did.

The real issue I think that hasn't been spoken yet is that black people are on the boards or are running some of these corporations and finally have the financial control to make a real statement by voting with their money. Perhaps the real issue you have a problem with, white men can't say whatever they want without any repercussions any longer.

I didn't mean it in any other context other than verbal abuse. When free speech is abusive then you take responsibility for what you've said and you're personally accountable for it. You don't get to trample over other people's rights just because you're using "free" speech.Sorry? Whose rights are being trampled over, except Imus's?

You have NO right to not be exposed to opinions you don't like. If you are so exposed, it is not abuse, not in the slightest.So answer the question - if a salesman in a department store can get sacked for abusively language why should a DJ keep his job when he offends his (advertiser's) customers?I answered it in Post #50:That said, your scenarios have two major differences. First, expressing personal opinions is the job of a radio celebrity, but not of a salesman (outside of those relating to his products). Second, the overall idea-suppressing effect of restricting the speech of a radio celebrity with a wide audience is huge, whereas the effect of restricting a salesman, who only works one-on-one with customers, is tiny.

Right, you didn't explain why Imus's freedom of speech is more important than the people who exercised theirs by complaining about him.It isn't.It seems to me you're the one trying to impose censorship.In what sense? They can say whatever they like.There was no freedom of speech issue here. He was free to speak and he did.If you are punished for speaking, you are not free to speak.The real issue I think that hasn't been spoken yet is that black people are on the boards or are running some of these corporations and finally have the financial control to make a real statement by voting with their money.Blacks have little to do with it. Well, except bigots like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but I'm talking about normal blacks.

The whites are the ones that caused this stampede, because they are terrified that if they don't lynch Imus, other whites won't like them and will think they are bigots or racists. The whites are the ones desperate to assuage their guilt, not the blacks.Perhaps the real issue you have a problem with, white men can't say whatever they want without any repercussions any longer.Of course they could. The whites still dominate these industries, and have the power to reinstate Imus. The only thing in the way is political correctness, a faulty opinion.

The only thing in the way is political correctness, a faulty opinion.

(General observation, not only tied to this specific example)

I've often wondered - why is it that behaving like a decent human being is all of a sudden a bad thing?

I've often wondered - why is it that behaving like a decent human being is all of a sudden a bad thing?Political correctness has nothing to do with behaving like a decent human being. It's a façade, a way some (white) people think they can get other (white) people to like them.

Those same white people desperate to be politically correct can easily be bigots behind the scenes, walking the other way when a black person comes down the street, or throwing a fit when their daughter goes out with a black person.

People who are secure in their opinions about race have no need to be politically correct. And those people aren't bigots, just because they don't repeat the politically correct mantras, and can behave like decent human beings.

Sorry? Whose rights are being trampled over, except Imus's?

I know of NO right that Imus has had trampled here in this case.

People who are secure in their opinions about race have no need to be politically correct. And those people aren't bigots, just because they don't repeat the politically correct mantras, and can behave like decent human beings.

Kindly share with me the crystal ball which gives you the insight to distinguish when someone is being decent because they ARE decent, and when they're faking it.

You have NO right to not be exposed to opinions you don't like. If you are so exposed, it is not abuse, not in the slightest.

Legal harrasment can definitely be "opinions you don't like" including sexism and racism.

Outside of the workplace, abuse can have the same impact and there's no need to condone harrasment just because it isn't legally enforced.

People who are secure in their opinions about race have no need to be politically correct. And those people aren't bigots, just because they don't repeat the politically correct mantras, and can behave like decent human beings.

You're up to your old tricks of labelling people as zealots, idiots, or herds and their arguments as dogma or mantras. Backing up your false arguments with dismissive arrogance doesn't prove anything and just gets people's hackles up.

I went back and looked at post #50.

First, expressing personal opinions is the job of a radio celebrity, but not of a salesman (outside of those relating to his products).

The job of the disc jockey is to increase market share for advertisers. One way of going about that is to voice opinions on a talk show. Imus was clearly failing the advertisers who indirectly pay his wages.

Second, the overall idea-suppressing effect of restricting the speech of a radio celebrity with a wide audience is huge, whereas the effect of restricting a salesman, who only works one-on-one with customers, is tiny.

So what? The rights of the salesman are just as valid as the rights of the DJ. Self-important people don't get more rights because they're self-proclaimed defenders of democracy or free speech.

The whites are the ones that caused this stampede, because they are terrified that if they don't lynch Imus, other whites won't like them and will think they are bigots or racists.
American Express was the first to pull their advertising. They have a black CEO. There's a black director on the board of CBS (or was, he might be retired) and a lot of the women working at CBS said they didn't want their company to be associated with that sort of racist/sexist talk. It was enough to cause CBS to reconsider the suspension, that and losing a lot of other big advertisers.

In the end, it was financial control that had the say. It was a thing of beauty that any should have made the cockles of any true free-enterpriser swell with pride, unless they had some other issues about race and gender, in which case they probably saddled up the poor old beaten up "Political Correctness" horse and trotted it around the yard a few times.

It was a thing of beauty that any should have made the cockles of any true free-enterpriser swell with pride, unless they had some other issues about race and gender, in which case they probably saddled up the poor old beaten up "Political Correctness" horse and trotted it around the yard a few times.I see, so if I'm not with the political correctness crowd, I must have issues about race and gender (i.e., I am a bigot).

Thank you for proving my point, Panamah.

Kindly share with me the crystal ball which gives you the insight to distinguish when someone is being decent because they ARE decent, and when they're faking it.Ignore everything they say and look to their actions that aren't paraded in the media.

Legal harrasment can definitely be "opinions you don't like" including sexism and racism.

Outside of the workplace, abuse can have the same impact and there's no need to condone harrasment just because it isn't legally enforced.So if I walk down the street and call you an asshole, I'm ABUSING you because you don't like it. I suppose you'll want to sue me, and put me in jail for it, too (otherwise why would you try to reinvent simple speech as "abuse").

Fascist.The job of the disc jockey is to increase market share for advertisers. One way of going about that is to voice opinions on a talk show. Imus was clearly failing the advertisers who indirectly pay his wages.No he wasn't. His show was making a lot of money and had a wide audience. Had everyone been forced to sit in the corner for a while to calm down, he would have reemerged unscathed, and would have continued to make a ton of money for CBS and draw a wide audience.Self-important people don't get more rights because they're self-proclaimed defenders of democracy or free speech.Yes, they do. For example, the guy standing on a soapbox on the street promoting his political party is going to receive stronger free speech protection than the same guy promoting his new topless bar, because the speech in the former scenario is more worthy of protection.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_on_re_us/imus_ranch_2<b>Future of Imus charity ranch questioned</b>

RIBERA, N.M. - Don Imus's banishment from the public airwaves also deprives him of a critical platform to raise money for the sprawling Imus Ranch, where children with cancer and other illnesses get a taste of the cowboy life.

With Imus out of a job, some wonder whether the pipeline to charity money will eventually dry up. Just as corporate sponsors backed away from his radio show, "I think you'll see a similar effect on the charity, where the corporate donors will find a less hot-button charity to support," said Trent Stamp, president of Charity Navigator, a New Jersey-based charity watchdog group.

Imus said he and his wife Deirdre are round-the-clock surrogate parents to the youngsters who spend a week at the property, nearly half of whom are from minority groups and 10 percent are black. "There's not an African-American parent on the planet who has sent their child to the Imus Ranch who didn't trust me and trust my wife," he said on his show. "And when these kids die, we don't just go to the white kid's funeral."

The nearly 4,000-acre ranch, at the foot of a mesa about 50 miles from Santa Fe, features a re-creation of the main street of a 19th-century Western town, a swimming pool, an indoor horse-riding arena, an outdoor rodeo arena, and barns. Kids between 10 and 17 who have cancer or serious blood disorders, or who have lost siblings to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, spend seven days at the ranch — in the summer, when Imus would broadcast from a studio there — at no cost to their families. They do daily chores, learn to ride and care for horses, and help feed cattle, sheep, buffalo, chickens, goats and donkeys. They stay in the main ranch house, a 14,000-square-foot adobe hacienda that the Imuses describe as an "architectural masterpiece." The menu is vegan: no meat, fish, poultry or dairy products are served.

It's an expensive operation. The ranch hosted 90 children from March 2005 through February 2006 and spent $2.5 million — or about $28,000 a child — according to its most recent federal tax filings. That's at least 10 times what the Make-A-Wish or similar camps spend on kids, largely because the Imus operation is a year-round, working cattle ranch, Stamp said.I doubt you'll see Al Sharpton or the white politically correct types talking about that.

I doubt you'll see Al Sharpton or the white politically correct types talking about that.
With respect to Sharpton's involvement, I suspect his actions have more to do with pandering to his base than making a substantive improvement to the lot of black women. Imus was little more than a symbolic target but he's a big fish and going after him guarantees lots of media attention. It's a lot easier to whip people into a froth of indignant outrage than it is to address real problems with complex solutions that don't lend themselves to sound bites.

Sure, what Imus said was offensive but when it gets right down to it, the only nappy headed ho in this whole spectacle is Sharpton. :)

Imus isn’t the real bad guy (http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html)
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.

By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

[More... (http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html)]

So if I walk down the street and call you an asshole, I'm ABUSING you because you don't like it.

Yes. I'm glad we could straighten out your misconception.

His show was making a lot of money and had a wide audience. Had everyone been forced to sit in the corner for a while to calm down, he would have reemerged unscathed, and would have continued to make a ton of money for CBS and draw a wide audience.

That's your opinion. It's not the opinion of his radio station.

Yes, they do. For example, the guy standing on a soapbox on the street promoting his political party is going to receive stronger free speech protection than the same guy promoting his new topless bar, because the speech in the former scenario is more worthy of protection.

Not at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but free speech isn't just guaranteed for the popular or those in authority. It wouldn't be free speech if that was the case.

By the way, you've just said that policiticans on the street (like Jesse Jackson) should be listened to and respected at the expense of demeanors of women (like this DJ).

Yes. I'm glad we could straighten out your misconception.ROFL. Since when did "abuse" get redefined to mean "anything you do or say that I don't like"?

The stupidity of that definition speaks for itself; I trust I need not go through the academic exercise of listing examples.That's your opinion. It's not the opinion of his radio station.I think it is. Public opinion and the media is their job, and they know full well that this whole thing will blow over in a few weeks, and that Imus could continue generating revenue for them.

That's why they only suspended him for two weeks at first.

They would have LOVED it if all advertisers were forced to wait a month before making a decision, because they know the advertisers would have likely stayed with them once their decision to withdraw or not withdraw lost all PR relevance.Correct me if I'm wrong but free speech isn't just guaranteed for the popular or those in authority.Freedom of speech isn't tiered by individual, but it is tiered by subject, at least in America. For example, political speech is at the top, commercial speech is in the middle, and ****ography is at the bottom.By the way, you've just said that policiticans on the street (like Jesse Jackson) should be listened to and respected at the expense of demeanors of women (like this DJ).I never said anything about listening to, or respecting, any speakers. I said that certain speech is more deserving of constitutional protection than other speech.

ROFL. Since when did "abuse" get redefined to mean "anything you do or say that I don't like"?

I don't know. Who said that? I didn't.

Go look up abuse in a dictionary and stop making yourself look stupid through your ignorance of what the word means.

I've a really fitting quote just for you. Who can remember the next few lines?

"Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!"

I don't know. Who said that? I didn't.Then I don't know what you're saying.

What's the difference between "verbal abuse" and "someone saying something that the other person doesn't like"? (This question assumes you think the former isn't deserving of free speech protection, while the latter is -- true?)

interesting Editorial from accross the pond.



Whitey, learn to keep your mouth shut
A racial storm in AmericaAlan Davieson
Don Imus, the line-crossing talk-radio host who broadcast daily across America from his New York studio, has been fired for referring to a team of black women basketball players as “nappy-headed ho’s”. Imus, a former Marine with a gruff demeanour, had an unsentimental show or, as they might say in America, it featured “guy talk” (any Briton, by the way, who uses “guy” or “guys” deserves a glossectomy).

There was some banter and unsubtle opinions were aired. It was not out of control but it also wasn’t a sanitised PC affair. He’s quite amusing and articulate in a resolutely uncomplicated way and had a huge listenership generating vast advertising revenue. Consequently, he attracted significant political figures as guests, pretty much anyone bar the President, who, of course, is rarely free to speak in public unscripted lest he describe Condi Rice as “that Secretary of State ho” in a momentary lapse.

Nappy-head, it turns out (excuse my whiteyness), means a black person who has allowed their hair to grow naturally into a tightly curled afro. It’s a term that can be used self-referentially with pride or disparagingly about others. Being a racial thing, its power is in the mouth of the speaker. Or is it in the ear of the listener? It’s complicated, so, in the interests of a quiet life, don’t use it unless you are very confident or, in fact, a nappy-head.

Imus apologised, offered no excuses, was roundly vilified and endured the measured, disproportionate wrath of Al Sharpton when guesting on the black activist/pentecostal minister’s radio show to defend himself. What they said, Imus and his sports reporter buddy, about the basketball game, was quite funny. The two teams were physically different. It was college basketball and Rutgers were playing Tennessee. The Rutgers girls looked more intimidating, they were inked up (tattoos . . .) and were altogether more menacing-looking even in defeat. These white radio boys were sniggering about that.

Basically, had it been a football match and it had all kicked off in the tunnel after the game, you’d have backed the Rutgers girls. The banter in the studio started trying to incorporate some black street language to describe the game to comic effect. It wasn’t very clever but then it’s morning talk radio.

To get to the top in college basketball you have to be good, in a general sense, not just at basketball, and you have to make sacrifices. At least that’s what college basketball folk and their families say. The girls were upset and in their robust defence they have been referred to as fine “representatives of God”. What fun you could have with that on the air if you were allowed to. God has sent down a team of 6ft tall Amazonian tattooed basketball players to represent Him. No doubt the devil sent Don Imus.

This happens when things get Blown Up Out Of All Proportion. There are enough people with a keen ear for a lapse that anyone broadcasting anywhere ought to speak thoughtfully. If only because you may not know how much offence you’ve caused until the outcry afterwards. Imus didn’t say: “If I’ve offended anyone I apologise.” He knew he’d caused offence.

He also did not say that the language and lyrics of black American rap artists leave his kind of remark not just in the shade but on the dark side of the moon.

A few years ago, on C4’s Big Breakfast, Johnny Vaughan asked me which was my worst ever stand-up gig. In 1989, at a private party in a Basildon disco, I performed to unanimous indifference. After me was an older comic. He ventured “Are there any Pakis in?” then went down a storm with racist material. Johnny intervened: “You can’t say that.” I said: it’s a true story — he said Pakis, not me. He stepped in with the forceful jocularity of the practised live TV presenter: “You can’t say that word.”

Some time later, a group of young British Asians were sitting in front of me at a football match. Bizarrely, one of them wanted a picture of me as his mum was a Jonathan Creek fan. His mate sneered: “I ain’t taking a picture of him, he used the P-word on TV.” He had me down as a racist, which was unpleasant. I’d gone over some invisible line. Johnny Vaughan knew where the line was; I didn’t. I thought context was relevant. I was as naive as a newborn calf. I was a C-word.

Among friends, thankfully, you can draw your own line. Wesley and Donald, two friends of mine from Edmonton, were discussing Donald’s attempts to sell his house after the break-up of his marriage. Donald was talking about some people who’d said they’d buy and then went back on the deal they’d shaken on.

“White folks?” said Wesley. “Yeh, they was white,” replied Donald. “Can’t trust Whitey,” said Wesley. “Nope,” said Donald, “you sure can’t trust Whitey.”

This observation had a poignancy and surprising air of veracity about it as well as being amusing, given that Wesley and Donald are both white.

Generally speaking Whitey’s too dumb to know where the line is. He must tread carefully since it’s the only line on the whole map of the world that he didn’t draw.



Obviously people flipping out and exerting pressure is a much better way then the government intervening, but still the whole seem things like people wanting to feel good about themselves by having "moral outrage" and "confront racism"

Excuse me If I honestly dont think that successful, black scholar athletes going to one of the best public universities on the west coast, honestly give a *damn* about what some 65 old white radio host says.

interesting Editorial from accross the pond.

Obviously people flipping out and exerting pressure is a much better way then the government intervening, but still the whole seem things like people wanting to feel good about themselves by having "moral outrage" and "confront racism"

I am cautiously inclined to think that if any government took an official position in what constitutes insulting (as opposed to free) speech, things were less likely to spin quite so out of control.
Mind you that I am not at all happy with the current Dutch attitude that people are entitled to insult anyone they want, any more than I like the overly sensitive attitude others are displaying over the most minor imagined slights.


Excuse me If I honestly dont think that successful, black scholar athletes going to one of the best public universities on the west coast, honestly give a *damn* about what some 65 old white radio host says.

I think any woman would justifiable be upset to be publicly called a prostitute. It is no less wrong when a radio presenter does it than when a 'gangsta' rapper, white or black, does it. Freedom of speech does not, in my opinion, include the right to gratuitously insult or demean people.

That said, I believe this whole mess shows once again that most people do not have an opinion until somebody tells them what it is. An unfortunate trait that allows politicians (amongst others) to exploit the system for their personal gain.

Was Don Imus wrong to say what he did? No doubt. Was he more wrong than the countless others who say the same in equally or more public media? No doubt at all that he was not.


Eri

What's the difference between "verbal abuse" and "someone saying something that the other person doesn't like"? (This question assumes you think the former isn't deserving of free speech protection, while the latter is -- true?)

Imus isn't being arrested for his free speech. He's being sacked. He doesn't have a right to speak on the airwaves. He had an opportunity to broadcast provided by a radio station financed by advertising revenues. He has wasted that opportunity by seriously offending part of his advertiser's audience.

I can sympathise with an argument that programmes will become bland if risk-averse advertisers dictate schedules. The solution is not the defence of abusive language but the support alternative broadcasters.

I can sympathise with an argument that programmes will become bland if risk-averse advertisers dictate schedules.

This already happened that side of the pond, though - have you SEEN what they pass off as "The office - US version"? It's sad :/

We're in the "vying for victimhood" stage of the debate now. :p

We're in the "vying for victimhood" stage of the debate now. :p

uhmmm... my victim is bigger than your victim?


Eri

Imus isn't being arrested for his free speech. He's being sacked. He doesn't have a right to speak on the airwaves.In a very technical legal sense, no one has a "right" to speak at all, there are just certain limitations to the government's prohibition of speech. But in a practical sense, if an unpopular speaker is blacklisted from every venue by the whim of a small minority of people, the injustice is just as grave.I can sympathise with an argument that programmes will become bland if risk-averse advertisers dictate schedules. The solution is not the defence of abusive language but the support alternative broadcasters.Yes, let's relegate unpopular speakers to some back alley where people have to pay admission to hear them. Then we'll feel better about gagging them. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

You still haven't answered my question, Anka. How do we draw the line between "verbal abuse" and protected speech, in your world? I presume that if instead of Don Imus talking about nappy-headed hos, it were Jesse Jackson talking about the plight of the black man, you'd be up in arms if the advertisers withdrew all their support. Is it limited to the Laws of Political Correctness, or what?

Yes, let's relegate unpopular speakers to some back alley where people have to pay admission to hear them. Then we'll feel better about gagging them.

What would you do if you were the boss of one of the companies that sponsored this show and you noticed your profits dropping and after analysing the situation, discovered that your customers took their business elsewhere rather than to you as a result of this sponsorship?

It's not about relegating, it's about giving them an arena at all, because as long as money talks, it'll always be up to the sponsors what does and does not get aired in the "regular" channels. So instead of actually throwing them out and forgetting about them, alternative broadcasters can, if supported, give them back an arena.

How do we draw the line between "verbal abuse" and protected speech, in your world?

You're fishing for something to argue about and I'm not going to bite. Imus never had protected radio airtime. He had a contract to perform on a radio station. He presumably broke his contract and was fired. Imus still has all his freedom of speech and can say whatever he likes with a loudhailer outside the stadium, presumably.

What would you do if you were the boss of one of the companies that sponsored this show and you noticed your profits dropping and after analysing the situation, discovered that your customers took their business elsewhere rather than to you as a result of this sponsorship?You're missing my point. I understand why the media jumped on Imus, why the advertisers then pulled out one by one, and why CBS then felt they had to fire him.

My point is that it was all unnecessary, and simply a product of political correctness. Had the herd's stampede been quelled early on, this domino effect would have been avoided.It's not about relegating, it's about giving them an arena at all, because as long as money talks, it'll always be up to the sponsors what does and does not get aired in the "regular" channels.Which creates a chilling effect on free speech, in the case of minority opinions.

That's why we have an equal-time rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule) in the United States, forcing broadcasters to give less popular political opponents the same free air time as popular ones.

With the Political Correctness Police now in full force, perhaps it's time to make an equal-time rule for non-politically correct speech.

You're fishing for something to argue about and I'm not going to bite.I'll take that as tacit agreement that "verbal abuse" as you define it is a meaningless standard by which to judge speech.He presumably broke his contract and was fired.Why do you presume that? He was only suspended at first, until the herd started stampeding full throttle. It's quite likely the contract allowed termination at will.Imus still has all his freedom of speech and can say whatever he likes with a loudhailer outside the stadium, presumably.So if every radio station, television station, and major web site boycotted all black <strike>bigots</strike>, err activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, you'd have no problem with it?

So if every radio station, television station, and major web site boycotted all black bigots, err activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, you'd have no problem with it?

If Al Sharpton was to commentate on a sports event on a major radio station and insult people then he probably wouldn't be invited to do the same again. If this DJ managed to get a crowd of people to a political rally then he would presumably be given a chance to speak in the media about his rally.

Tudamorf... is this what you're advocating? That we go back to how things were, when anyone could call a black person a N* and get away with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson
Throughout the season, Robinson experienced harassment at the hands of both players and fans. He was verbally abused by both his own teammates and by members of opposing teams. Some Dodger players insinuated they would sit out rather than play alongside Robinson. The mutiny ended when Dodger management informed those players that they were welcome to find employment elsewhere.

On April 22, 1947, during a game between the Dodgers and Philadelphia Phillies, Phillies players called Jackie a "nigger" from their dugout, and yelled that he should "go back to the cotton fields."[22] Rickey would later recall that the Phillies' manager, Ben Chapman, "did more than anybody to unite the Dodgers. When he poured out that string of unconscionable abuse, he solidified and united thirty men."[23] Baseball Commissioner Happy Chandler admonished the Phillies and asked Chapman to pose for photographs with Robinson as a conciliatory gesture.
So this horrible political correctness means that white players could freely call the black players whatever they wanted without fear of their "free speech" rights getting trampled on.

If Al Sharpton was to commentate on a sports event on a major radio station and insult people then he probably wouldn't be invited to do the same again.That's not what I asked you. But since you mentioned it, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton insult people left and right, and they get invited to speak, time and time again.

Tudamorf... is this what you're advocating?No, I am not advocating that we regress society's advancements since the mid 20th century.

I fail to see what political correctness has to do with actual societal progress. Many of those politically correct whites are bigots themselves, cowardly hiding that bigotry behind the PC façade.

Political correctness is just a way white people try to get other white people to like them. "Look! I am lynching Don Imus! I am not a bigot! I am a good guy!"That we go back to how things were, when anyone could call a black person a N* and get away with it?Ideally, yes, everyone should be able to call a black person "a N*" and get away it, while simultaneously, no one should want to.

In the meantime, words will only have the power that the listeners give them. The gays knew this, and instead of trying to hush up all the derogatory terms used against them, they adopted them as their own.

Trying to suppress derogatory words only gives those words more power, and unnecessarily hinders free speech while increasing racial tension.So this horrible political correctness means that white players could freely call the black players whatever they wanted without fear of their "free speech" rights getting trampled on.I wouldn't go that far. Someone hounding you personally, all the time, can amount to harassment. But if we're talking about some white guy on a radio program, using a slur once every few years, harassment is not even an issue; just turn the dial.

My point is that it was all unnecessary, and simply a product of political correctness.

Explain why you would say that this specific case was political correctness (remember your definition) and not pure finances.

Explain why you would say that this specific case was political correctness (remember your definition) and not pure finances.Political correctness was the primary cause. Finances were a secondary reaction.

But for the political correctness, finances would not have been an issue.

If Al Sharpton was to commentate on a sports event on a major radio station and insult people then he probably wouldn't be invited to do the same again.

He is an insult every time he speaks.

He really can't be supported by Blacks, not in real life, can he? He has just got to be a shill for the same whites that Tudamorf is talking about.

That's not what I asked you. But since you mentioned it, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton insult people left and right, and they get invited to speak, time and time again.

I didn't answer your loaded question because you're trying to set up a straw man argument. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton presumably aren't paid by radio stations to host light entertainment, although in broadcasting I suppose anything is possible.

Ideally, yes, everyone should be able to call a black person "a N*" and get away it, while simultaneously, no one should want to.


So if nobody wants to hear them say it, that's good in your opinion?

Political correctness was the primary cause. Finances were a secondary reaction.

How do you know this?

I didn't answer your loaded question because you're trying to set up a straw man argument.You already set up the straw man, I'm just knocking it down.

If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were blacklisted from all radio and television stations because they were giving their views on the plight of the blacks, you'd be screaming bloody murder. You wouldn't say, "aw hell, they can just go out in the street with a megaphone."So if nobody wants to hear them say it, that's good in your opinion?No, that's bad. People should be indifferent about hearing it, like calling someone some ancient derogatory term that has been out of use for 1,000 years or calling someone gay or queer (assuming they are).

How do you know this?Because of the sequence of events. No one was losing any money right after he said it. CBS only suspended him for two weeks, because they didn't see it as a big deal. After all, the guy was a loose cannon, had made slurs before, and it didn't hurt their bottom line. It was only after the wave of political correctness and herd mentality forced advertisers to withdraw support that CBS had to grudgingly dismiss him.

Because of the sequence of events. No one was losing any money right after he said it. CBS only suspended him for two weeks, because they didn't see it as a big deal. After all, the guy was a loose cannon, had made slurs before, and it didn't hurt their bottom line. It was only after the wave of political correctness and herd mentality forced advertisers to withdraw support that CBS had to grudgingly dismiss him.

Explain to me how you, as a consumer, stop buying a product because you disagree with the company's policy before you're informed of the policy.

Ideally, yes, everyone should be able to call a black person "a N*" and get away it, while simultaneously, no one should want to.

People should be indifferent about hearing it, like calling someone some ancient derogatory term that has been out of use for 1,000 years or calling someone gay or queer

When people use these words they often have intent and they're not meant to be treated with indifference. This DJ didn't use the term "nappy headed ho" to descibe the woman as a nice girl who's a credit to a sport's team. He used it to demean the athlete's race and sex in an abusive manner. It was deliberate but misjudged, presumably.

There will always be insults and verbal abuse, even if the specific words change over the decades.

You already set up the straw man, I'm just knocking it down.

If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were blacklisted from all radio and television stations because they were giving their views on the plight of the blacks, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

Straw man? You're asking people to justify the blacklisting (not just sacking) of controversial people in order to confuse the issue of how one DJ has lost his job through his own incompetence. If you've a point to make then say it plainly.

When people use these words they often have intent and they're not meant to be treated with indifference.So? The power of the word lies with the ears of the listener, not the mouth of the speaker.

If the black community finally decided to just shrug off these words instead of making a big deal about them, they'd see the use of the word decline (at least in the derogatory sense).You're asking people to justify the blacklisting (not just sacking) of controversial people in order to confuse the issue of how one DJ has lost his job through his own incompetence. If you've a point to make then say it plainly.Actually, you have already justified it, and I am trying to show you why it is NOT justified.

Explain to me how you, as a consumer, stop buying a product because you disagree with the company's policy before you're informed of the policy.You're going off into tangents of tangents.

If I, as a listener, don't like Imus, I don't listen to the show. The more people do that, the less money CBS makes on the show, and the less lucrative the advertising.

That is how the free market system should work, but in this case we have had the rug pulled out from under us by a tiny minority of Political Correctness Police, who have made the decision for us.

As I told Anka, let ME decide whether Imus is offensive, don't make that decision for me.

If I, as a listener, don't like Imus, I don't listen to the show. The more people do that, the less money CBS makes on the show, and the less lucrative the advertising.

That is how the free market system should work, but in this case we have had the rug pulled out from under us by a tiny minority of Political Correctness Police, who have made the decision for us.

How do you know this? Do you have some form of insight that says "No, the advertisers didn't really lose money from this, they were just being amazingly stupid businessmen who pulled the plug on a money making advertising plan"? Or do you know that a whole lot of fyyrs didn't think "eww!", turned the dial, and bought from the advertisers' competition instead, thus costing the advertisers money, and thus making them make the (wise, from a business point of view, I might add) decision to spend their marketting budget differently?

Do you have some form of insight that says "No, the advertisers didn't really lose money from this, they were just being amazingly stupid businessmen who pulled the plug on a money making advertising plan"?There is no way the advertisers could have calculated the fiscal impact of Imus's statement that quickly -- if that's what you're getting at. It was a knee jerk, politically correct reaction, even though they most likely lost money on the deal.Or do you know that a whole lot of fyyrs didn't think "eww!", turned the dial, and bought from the advertisers' competition instead, thus costing the advertisers money, and thus making them make the (wise, from a business point of view, I might add) decision to spend their marketting budget differently?You're not making sense. Close competitors will tend to advertise in the same places, so if Fyyr turned the dial to a program with similar demographics, he would have likely heard the very same advertisements, and he would not have been so swayed towards a competitor.

Outside of political correctness, the real financial issue is whether the Imus ads were now worth the price CBS was charging. If Imus lost listeners, they are worth less. If Imus gained listeners due to all the attention, they are worth more. However, there is no way the advertisers could have calculated this in time for their decision, and it would, in any event, only affect their costs, not the demand for their product.

Or do you know that a whole lot of fyyrs didn't think "eww!", turned the dial, and bought from the advertisers' competition instead...

I tried Imus back in the early 90s, I thought the guy was an idiot. I turned the radio dial back then.

So by proxy, I have been boycotting at least his advertisers' advertising all of this time already; and at most their products.

I am going to still boycott Bigelow Teas not just because of obscurity now, but because of principle, even if I don't(didn't) like Imus.

There is no way the advertisers could have calculated the fiscal impact of Imus's statement that quickly

If I were the head of a large company, I'd sure as hell hire financial managers capable of risk analysis and management at a high level, no way would I settle for ones that had to actually see a negative change in order for them to tap me on the back and tell me "yanno, mam, we're most likely going to lose some dollarses here, how about we.. yanno.. don't?"

Once the money is lost, it's a bit late. I'd want my financial managers to tell me the risk BEFORE the curves started going downhill. Would they always be right? Of course not. Would I always listen? Probably not. But they'd - if they were worth their wages - be right enough of the time for the bottom line to be higher than it would've been if we'd just sat back and waited for actual loss to occur before pulling out.

(Cliff's notes: Don't invest in a company ran by Tuda)

It's not about relegating, it's about giving them an arena at all, because as long as money talks, it'll always be up to the sponsors what does and does not get aired in the "regular" channels. So instead of actually throwing them out and forgetting about them, alternative broadcasters can, if supported, give them back an arena.

I suppose you meant regulating.

There should always be a 'channel' for interesting entertainers. And will probably be.

Whether that is current satellite radio channels. Future satellite channels. Internet broadcasting(which may soon be in cars). Even pirate channeling, arg.

Even that NYC public channel chick who posts her stuff on UTube. That stuff she does is good enough to make her some money, even though her current broadcast medium is free to her(for distribution to millions of potential listeners/watchers).

No one is gagging Imus, as long as the Gov-ment does not get involved, it will all work out. And Imus will get the audience he deserves, even if he has to do it for free on UTube, or a cable access channel(Don's World, Don's World, Excellent,,,, Party Time, do do do do do do do do). The First Amendment only guarantees speech, it does not guarantee that you can make a dollar off of it. His First Amendment rights, so far, have not been nicked, scratched, not even blown on with bad breath.

No, I am not advocating that we regress society's advancements since the mid 20th century.

I fail to see what political correctness has to do with actual societal progress. Many of those politically correct whites are bigots themselves, cowardly hiding that bigotry behind the PC façade.
You confuse the hell out of me. Why is using the N* term in Jackie Robinson's time considered racism but using "Nappy Headed Ho" nowadays not racist?
Ideally, yes, everyone should be able to call a black person "a N*" and get away it, while simultaneously, no one should want to.
So you claim to be able to crawl inside the heads of everyone disagreeing with what Imus did, that they're all closet racists and just objecting because they want to be liked by... who exactly? Black people?

I'll introduce you to an idea that you're probably not going to like. Sometimes acting like one thing even though you may feel differently inside is an effective way to change yourself. For instance, I could sit around and bemoan the fact that I have to learn a new programming language and curse my fate about this silly, obsolete and obscure piece of crap. Or I could find good things to think about it, how I'll be one of the very few people in the world that knows this bit of antiquity and it could be a very profitable thing in the future. My very ability to adapt is related to the sort of thoughts I have about this, if I hate on it, or hang around people that hate on it, I'll probably at some level reject it and set myself up to fail. Or I could hang around enthusiasts and change my mind set.

Its the same with race, racial slurs. If you accept that sort of thing, you're going to at some level believe it.

And if you don't believe it... challege yourself to the IAT (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1).

but using "Nappy Headed Ho" nowadays not racist?

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that it is usually Blacks who use those terms about other Blacks(well, I at least have only really heard them said by Blacks, well until now).

The notion that Blacks can, and are permitted to, use 'nappy headed', or 'ho', or 'N*', and others can not is completely absurd.

It is like only those with breasts are permitted to say the word 'breasts', or only those with penises, can say the word 'penis'.

It is stupid to the extreme. It should be stopped, not encouraged.

So you claim to be able to crawl inside the heads of everyone disagreeing with what Imus did, that they're all closet racists and just objecting because they want to be liked by... who exactly? Black people?

Ya, or they don't want to appear racist to their White Liberal Guilty Politically Correct associates. Because many people think that these people are 'enlightened'(especially those who are them) and want to curry favor with them, they want these people to like them.

If I were the head of a large company, I'd sure as hell hire financial managers capable of risk analysis and management at a high level, no way would I settle for ones that had to actually see a negative change in order for them to tap me on the back and tell me "yanno, mam, we're most likely going to lose some dollarses here, how about we.. yanno.. don't?"Those people don't have a crystal ball, or a magic wand. They can predict trends and possibilities, but not outcomes of very unusual events like this.

Imus has made slurs before, without any serious repercussions. If the Political Correctness Police hadn't intervened in this case, I'm positive the exact same thing would have happened, i.e., nothing.

But they did intervene, and once the herd began its stampede, no one wanted to be left behind. It was no longer a question of how many listeners they've lost for their advertisements (the financial issue), but a strictly PR question, i.e., will I be roasted in the press as a bigot by the Political Correctness Police if I don't pull out?

This is pretty obvious from the sequence of events, it doesn't require a high-paid analyst or even an MBA to figure out.

You confuse the hell out of me. Why is using the N* term in Jackie Robinson's time considered racism but using "Nappy Headed Ho" nowadays not racist?What difference does it make, whether the term is racist? Let's assume they both are, it changes nothing.So you claim to be able to crawl inside the heads of everyone disagreeing with what Imus did, that they're all closet racists and just objecting because they want to be liked by... who exactly? Black people?No, they want to be liked by WHITE people, that is why they jumped on the political correctness bandwagon. Because then they can show to other WHITE people how good and UN-racist and superior they are, and look, here is Don Imus's head as proof.

Closet racism isn't a strict requirement to join -- only insecurity is -- but it definitely gives you bonus points on the application.

Black people hardly figure into this at all, in any sense.Sometimes acting like one thing even though you may feel differently inside is an effective way to change yourself.And most of the time it is just superficial phoniness. I doubt all those born-again politically correct middle aged white people are going to suddenly be thrilled with the idea of their white daughter making black babies, or of moving into a black neighborhood.

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that it is usually Blacks who use those terms about other Blacks(well, I at least have only really heard them said by Blacks, well until now).

The notion that Blacks can, and are permitted to, use 'nappy headed', or 'ho', or 'N*', and others can not is completely absurd.

It is like only those with breasts are permitted to say the word 'breasts', or only those with penises, can say the word 'penis'.

It is stupid to the extreme. It should be stopped, not encouraged.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130010
The same people that objected to Imus saying it also object to the Rappers that are. Jeez, you guys sure blather the Fox news talking points.

And two wrongs still don't make a right.

So? The power of the word lies with the ears of the listener, not the mouth of the speaker.

It's so hard to argue argainst someone who is putting up false concepts that actually destroy their own case. Do you enter into a pointless dispute about the inappropriate use of this pocket philosophy? Do you argue over how the irrelevant statement proves the views of the listeners, however founded, would inevitably prevail? I feel I would be losing my sanity either way.

If the black community finally decided to just shrug off these words instead of making a big deal about them, they'd see the use of the word decline (at least in the derogatory sense).

That's precisely the problem. It is not for me or you to dictate to minorities how they should feel about bigotry. Ultimately, their own opinion is the most important. You can't erase a history of second class citizenship with an optimistic notion.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130010
The same people that objected to Imus saying it also object to the Rappers that are. Jeez, you guys sure blather the Fox news talking points.

And two wrongs still don't make a right.

Not just talking about rappers.

Comedians and other entertainers too.

And if you discount that Chris Rock can make a living off of saying the N word, while Michael Richards essentially loses his job for saying it, then you are part of the problem. If you defend it, and not just discount, then you really are THE problem.

I don't go around saying that 'white trash', 'wigger', 'honky', 'oakey', or whatever are OFF LIMITS to Blacks; and only Whites may call other Whites racial epithets. That notion is alien to me, just as it is the other way around. The opposite really, because I know they exist, I see them all around me.

Honestly, those so quick to be offended need to buy some thicker skin, and get off the couch and actually make a difference about it, instead of complaining and whining about it.

The fastest way that Blacks will escape the use of N word is to not act like it, and to stop using it themselves. If the word(s) persists as part of their culture, it will inevitably stay a part of the larger culture; duh, because they are part of the larger culture too.

Hell, even this thread is denoting at least some direction back to normalcy. It was once Politically INCorrect to say "Black"(Anyone remember the Oprah Winfrey-Michael Jackson interview?). We(stupid white kids) were taught that it was racist to even say "Black". It is not anymore. Opinions can change, even if you have to press hard.

Ultimately, their own opinion is the most important.

Buuuum.

Wrong answer.

My opinion is the most important.

/aside; as yours should be to you, of course.

You can't erase a history of second class citizenship with an optimistic notion.

I think that is a cop out.

We have had waves of minorities which are able to be successful despite having their ancestors oppressed by Whitey 150 years ago.

Blacks here have a serious problem with appearing to act 'white' in order succeed, in our country, failing miserably to realize that whites have to act 'white' in order to succeed too. That is an internal cultural problem. One that almost all other emigre culture lacks when they come here. And continues, and will continue to be, an integral factor in non-success for those who possess that value.

You're right that it shouldn't be an excuse. It's also shouldn't be forgotten that there are plenty of people alive today that have suffered severe racial discrimination and you can't tell them to just forget it.

Of course there is racial discrimination.

Hell, my town is mostly White, and we still have a North Dakota Vs South Dakota picnic out at Micke's Grove park every year.

It is like 40 percent Mexican. 10 percent Pakistani. And 0.01 percent Black, and I know him.

You just don't see any of the other minorities wallowing in it. Hell, the sh!t happened 150 to 300 years ago, by people who are long long dead. Not to mention the fact that all their decendants(living here today) would probably be living in mud huts right now, or dying of AIDS or malaria or TB right now if not for the slave trade.

Don't give me that. Guilt is not hereditary. This is not some Dickensian justification of children being in jail for debts their fathers ran up.

Hell, half of my ancestors were Vikings who raided England, raped your women, and enslaved your people(who became my ancestors as well, of course).

You gonna bitch and whine to me now, for that? Step off.

My great grandmother's grandfather had a plantation, and freed all of his slaves before the Civil War(and moved to California). If Blacks want to hold that slavery over my head, I will tell them to step off too.

Besides, when I get my place, and my dungeon set up, all of my sex slaves they are gonna be White anyway, or at least Brown. Call me a racist for that, I don't care. When I cared what you thought of me, I cared, I don't anymore. And that is freedom.

You just don't see any of the other minorities wallowing in it. Hell, the sh!t happened 150 to 300 years ago, by people who are long long dead.
Huh? Blacks had to endure systematic racism well into the 60's.

Huh? Blacks had to endure systematic racism well into the 60's.
Huh?

No different than any other 'race'.



Hell, the Irish still have to endure racist drunkard jokes at their expense, today. And they're White. With relish, and corned beef, and cabbage, and potatoes, and green beer. Or perpetuate it as the case may be.

You don't see them mope'in' in it.

I have been in stores with my Mexican friends and have out and out seen Whites discriminate against them. They suck it up, work harder, buy a Taco Truck, and try to fit in.(or work for a Mexican who had bought 15 of them, sold them, then opened up the third largest grocery store in town).

It is not for me or you to dictate to minorities how they should feel about bigotry.I'm doing them a favor, by showing them how they can eliminate their problem. If they want to ignore my advice and keep perpetuating their problem, it's fine by me.

And don't forget, the natural corollary of your rule is, they can't dictate my opinions, as you politically correct types are trying to do to me.Ultimately, their own opinion is the most important.Only to them. It is not more important to society at large, nor should it be. You can't erase a history of second class citizenship with an optimistic notion.When the Asians (mostly Chinese) first came to San Francisco during the gold rush period about 150 years ago, they suffered terrible discrimination and were scarcely better than slaves. Today, they make up one third of the City, and are among its wealthiest and most successful residents, easily equaling (if not surpassing in some areas) the whites. All they had was an optimistic notion that they could better themselves, a notion they put into force with a strong work and family ethic.

So yes Anka, you CAN erase a history of second class citizenship with an optimistic notion.

Huh? Blacks had to endure systematic racism well into the 60's.So did Asians. And Jews. Still, they ended up on top.

So did Asians. And Jews. Still, they ended up on top.
The Asian and Hispanic populations only really started growing significantly after 1960 -- meaning that most of them came to this country (or were born) after the civil rights movement had successfully challenged "separate but equal." Consequently, the vast majority of those populations were spared the brunt of what blacks had to endure. Did Jews have to ride at the back of the bus and drink from the "colored" drinking fountains?

The Asian and Hispanic populations only really started growing significantly after 1960 -- meaning that most of them came to this country (or were born) after the civil rights movement had successfully challenged "separate but equal."What are you talking about? Scroll up for my mini-history of the Asians in San Francisco; they've been here since the gold rush days of the mid 19th century, when the City was founded.

Mexicans have been here since before the colonial days, particularly in the southwest. This should be obvious, as it used to be their territory.

Jews have been here since the colonial days, although the late 19th century and early 20th century saw the largest influx on account of European anti-semitism.Did Jews have to ride at the back of the bus and drink from the "colored" drinking fountains?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jews_in_the_United_StatesIn 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. [10]While Anti-Semitism has proven less destructive to the Jews in the United States than in most other countries outside of Israel, Australia and India, Jews in the United States were often persecuted. They were not allowed to vote in some states until the late 19th Century. Anti-Jewish sentiment started around the time of the Civil War, when Jews were often blamed by each side for aiding the other, Ulysses Grant even issued an order (quickly rescinded by President Lincoln) of expulsion against Jews from the portions of Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi under his control. (See General Order No. 11)

Anti-Semitism continued to rise, and even to become normalized, through the late 1800s and first half of 1900s. It took primarily four forms: verbal or written criticisms of Jews that included the dissemination of vicious stereotypes; calls for law restricting Jewish immigration or influence; violence against individual Jews, and de facto social and economic discrimination. Jews were discriminated against in employment, access to residential and resort areas, membership in the clubs and organizations, and in tightened quotas on Jewish enrollment (numerus clausus) and teaching positions in colleges and universities.

Anti-Semitism in America reached its peak during the interwar period. The rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, the anti-Semitic works of Henry Ford, and the radio speeches of Father Coughlin in the late 1930s indicated the strength of attacks on the Jewish community.No Klath, life wasn't hunky-dory for Jews throughout American history, it was just better than being deported, killed, and/or thrown into furnaces in Europe.

The reason Asians and Jews succeeded in the United States despite discrimination, and the blacks didn't, is that they sucked it up, worked hard, and did everything to provide education and a better life for their kids.

If the blacks had the same work/family ethic that Asians and Jews have, instead of taking up drug dealing and killing one another in pointless gang wars, they'd be on top today, too, because they have been given far more handouts than the Asians and Jews have ever received.

The Political Correctness Police would like to hide this simple truth, but it nevertheless remains, the truth.

You just don't see any of the other minorities wallowing in it. Hell, the sh!t happened 150 to 300 years ago, by people who are long long dead.
My people have had over 200 years in America to build their fortunes, promote education in their children, pass on inheritences (or not in my families case...) Blacks have had, maybe about 30 years, even in the 70's it was tough. They were oppressed like nothing any other race had to put up with in this country, they couldn't attend decent schools, couldn't afford to go to college, were completely segregated from everyone else. I sincerely doubt my own lineage could bootstrap themselves from dirt poor to equal in less than a generation.

Geez, in Europe they've got the holocaust deniers, in America we have the slavery/racism deniers.

What are you talking about? Scroll up for my mini-history of the Asians in San Francisco; they've been here since the gold rush days of the mid 19th century, when the City was founded.
Read what I said and look at the census if you don't believe me. The Black population has accounted for about ~11% of the total population since the late 1800s. Both the Asian and Hispanic populations have grown significantly in their percentage of the overall population since 1960. My point being that many Asians and Hispanics are recent immigrants who did not live through (or were not descendants of someone who lived through) the systematic racism that Blacks lived through.

Klath, life wasn't hunky-dory for Jews throughout American history
I never said it was. I will say that Jews, as ****ty as they've been treated here, have not been treated as badly as Blacks.

Those people don't have a crystal ball, or a magic wand. They can predict trends and possibilities, but not outcomes of very unusual events like this.

Imus has made slurs before, without any serious repercussions. If the Political Correctness Police hadn't intervened in this case, I'm positive the exact same thing would have happened, i.e., nothing.

But they did intervene, and once the herd began its stampede

Are you saying that these financial managers told the CEO: The herd is stampeding, but don't worry, most likely it won't cause us to lose any money?

They were oppressed like nothing any other race had to put up with in this country, they couldn't attend decent schools, couldn't afford to go to college, were completely segregated from everyone else.
Aye, only 150 years ago Blacks were property, after that they were discriminated against for 100+ years. It's only recently they've been cut some slack. Talk about having the deck stacked against you.

Both the Asian and Hispanic populations have grown significantly in their percentage of the overall population since 1960. My point being that many Asians and Hispanics are recent immigrants who did not live through (or were not descendants of someone who lived through) the systematic racism that Blacks lived through.And read what <b><i>I</b></i> said about the Asians in San Francisco. They have been here since the 1850s. What is today Chinatown started out back then, as a bunch of Chinese running laundries on Stockton street (which today still runs through the heart of Chinatown) for dirt poor wages. They lived through terrible discrimination, and thrived.

Blacks have had, maybe about 30 years, even in the 70's it was tough. They were oppressed like nothing any other race had to put up with in this country, they couldn't attend decent schools, couldn't afford to go to college, were completely segregated from everyone else.Is this the Politically Correct Revisionist American History?

Many blacks have been free in America since the time of the American Revolution. It was only in the South that slavery persisted until 1865, when it was abolished.

In the mid 20th century until today, the blacks have been given enormously generous handouts. Handouts which other races, that suffered horrible discrimination, never received.

Blacks have had centuries, and dozens of generations, to better their culture, but have done surprisingly little. Had the blacks adopted a culture as superior as the Asians', they would have undoubtedly thrived, just as the Asians did in the face of discrimination.

Put your guilt-assuaging political correctness aside for a moment, read some history, and you'll understand this basic truth. (You can keep it a secret from the other politically correct white people, so they might still like you.)

Are you saying that these financial managers told the CEO: The herd is stampeding, but don't worry, most likely it won't cause us to lose any money?No, I'm saying they would not have told the CEO to pull the advertising had the herd not started stampeding.

There was likely little, if any, financial incentive to pull the advertising outside of the negative PR value post-stampede.

They lived through terrible discrimination, and thrived.
I don't doubt that they suffered terrible discrimination and I commend them for thriving. Still, as bad as their obstacles were, the Blacks have consistently had it worse. Do you dispute this?

Had the blacks adopted a culture as superior as the Asians', they would have undoubtedly thrived, just as the Asians did in the face of discrimination.
Asians have had the benefit of having a continuity to their culture that wasn't interrupted (or erased) by slavery. Blacks have had to start out virtually from scratch.

Still, as bad as their obstacles were, the Blacks have consistently had it worse. Do you dispute this?Yes, as to the blacks who weren't slaves.

No, I'm saying they would not have told the CEO to pull the advertising had the herd not started stampeding.

And exactly how do you know that the herd started stampeding because of "political correctness", and not from learning what was going on and disliking it?

And are you seriously suggesting that it (in some cases) is a BAD thing to let consumers talk with their credit cards?

There was likely little, if any, financial incentive to pull the advertising outside of the negative PR value post-stampede.

Please, if you have specific financial information regarding the risk analysis within these companies, by all means - share. But don't expect anyone to take such statements of facts as anything but bs pulled out of thin air unless you posess such information.

And are you seriously suggesting that it (in some cases) is a BAD thing to let consumers talk with their credit cards?Consumers did not have a voice at all. There was no time to gauge their response.And exactly how do you know that the herd started stampeding because of "political correctness", and not from learning what was going on and disliking it?Because of the sequence of events. CBS at first suspended him for two weeks, then later fired him because of the political correctness pressure. One advertiser pulled out, and suddenly many others followed, because they were afraid of being considered bigots.

Had they all had some magic wand that told them "nappy-headed ho comment = $X in lost revenue," they would have all acted immediately and simultaneously.

Consumers did not have a voice at all. There was no time to gauge their response.

So exactly who is it that cause the stampede that caused advertisers to pull out? I'm getting progressivly more confused about your version of this, it seems to adapt itself dynamically and change over time.

One advertiser pulled out, and suddenly many others followed, because they were afraid of being considered bigots.

And why wouldn't they be afraid of this? If a company is assosiated with being bigots, it's a relatively nobrainer assumption to say their revenue will suffer.

Had they all had some magic wand that told them "nappy-headed ho comment = $X in lost revenue," they would have all acted immediately and simultaneously.

That statement assumes that 1. all risk managers are alike. 2. all risk managers work on the same time-schedule 3. all companies base their actions on the same level of risk - and a whole ton of other totally incorrect assumptions that anyone with business 101 would be able to point out.

So exactly who is it that cause the stampede that caused advertisers to pull out?The media, the Political Correctness Police, and Al Sharpton, to name a few.And why wouldn't they be afraid of this? If a company is assosiated with being bigots, it's a relatively nobrainer assumption to say their revenue will suffer.What are you NOT understanding?

Let's imagine a scenario where he talked about nappy-headed hos, and NO ONE in the media commented about it, only the listeners heard it.

In that situation, the advertisers would not have pulled out, and CBS would not have fired Imus. They would not have been afraid of being labeled bigots, because they had no political correctness benchmark to be compared to.That statement assumes that 1. all risk managers are alike. 2. all risk managers work on the same time-schedule 3. all companies base their actions on the same level of risk - and a whole ton of other totally incorrect assumptions that anyone with business 101 would be able to point out.Yes Tinsi, it's just a major coincidence that no one gave a damn at first, and once the media/political correctness police/Al Sharpton started bitching and whining, all those white-owned companies started simultaneously getting cold feet and pulling out like a stampeding herd.

I guess they must have all hired those risk managers that work on a precise two day delay, yep, that's it. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Anyone with an ounce of common sense and experience with political correctness in the United States understands exactly what happened here. You forget, we've seen it all before in the past 20 years, hundreds of times, and it's always the same old story. You live in a country where people are (more) normal in this respect, so I can see why you're confused.

So now you're advocating limitations to the free press? "oh noes, the press wrote something I disagree with omg!!"

What are you NOT understanding?

a)exactly who did b) exactly what and c)why was this bad and d) how would you have solved A's problem?

You seem to jump from group to group when assigning "blame" without even saying what they did wrong in the first place, nevermind what you think they OUGHT to have done.

You're right about one thing - no wonder I'm confused.

Bigotry is not just a belief but something that has real victims. Sexism and racism would be tolerated to some degree if they did not make people's lives worse. By turning a blind eye you condone bigotry and perpetuate it.

The vicitms of this bigotry are the sportsl team, who want to be treated as respected sportswomen. They might want sport scholarships or endorsements or professional contracts. Allowing widespread bigotry which demeans their status will affect their sporting careers.

<chuckle>

Where was the hue and cry and moral outrage when Imus, a mere couple of week previously, called his bosses "money-grubbing Jews" on air?

Its not the fist time he'd made anti-semitic remarks, either..he once described a Jewish reporter he didn't like as a "big-nosed beanie wearer" or something to that effect.

No, the PC brigade would have much more...credibility if their righteous and moral indignation weren't so limited.

*blinks*
*blinks again*
what prompted that remark?

Its a line from Goldmember (Austin Powers III).






That I can fully agree with. I guess in the fine American tradition of litigation perhaps some organisation can sue those rappers on behalf of 100 million women for defamation, discrimination and inciting violence towards them ...
After all Aidon assures us that is how the system is supposed to work :)


Eri

Oh, you can sue for anything you want...however, defamation has to be more specific than "against all women!" and even civil litigation is not entirely immune to the protections of free speech. In the end, any such claim would be thrown out (unless, perhaps, the 9th circuit was ruling on it...you never know what those guys will do).

What was unconstitutional about what was done? No lawyers, no courts, an employer and advertisers and citizens all doing what was guaranteed to them in the constitution, complaining about something they didn't like.

And you'd force them to wait a month to exercise their freedom of speech? Why is Imus's freedom of speech more important than all the people who spoke out afterwards?

If I was Don Imus, I'd look into my contract, the law of whatever state he was employed in, and seriously consider a wrongful termination claim against CBS.

They knew what he was when they signed him up. They knew that was what he did...they signed his contract specifically because he was found generally offensive.

It'd be like Sirius radio deciding to fire Howard Stern because he said something raunchy and degrading about women.

Yes, as to the blacks who weren't slaves.
There were far more slaves than free Blacks prior to 1865. Again, feel free to consult the census data if you don't believe me.

Only in the context of exercising control over them.

Random person X offending random person Y is NOT abuse.In a month's time -- probably even two weeks -- everyone will have forgotten about this incident, and the herd will certainly not come to the same conclusion.

Not entirely true.

The freedom of expression has limitations regarding "fighting words"..however, it is virtually impossible for a person to use "fighting words" over mass media, or in a speech before a crowd, etc., as their definition describes "[...]fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

I do not have the right to walk up to a Black man and call him a nigger.

This standard, though, is almost purely regarding direct interpersonal interaction, as ruled with regard to the Nazi party marching in Skokie (attempts to block their march were predicated on the idea that the swastika and the message the Nazi's were to promulgate would be "fighting words" considering Skokie, at the time, was a small down heavily populated by Holocaust survivors. The ruling of the original court that they were "fighting words" was struck down. The fighting words doctine must be narrowly construed).

A person has every right to get on the radio and spew all the hatred they want. They do not have the right to spew that same hateful speech directly at an individual; the words themselves, in direct interaction, are harmful.

Its not the fist time he'd made anti-semitic remarks, either..he once described a Jewish reporter he didn't like as a "big-nosed beanie wearer" or something to that effect.
Aye, Imus has insulted just about every group out there at some point or another.

If Al Sharpton was to commentate on a sports event on a major radio station and insult people then he probably wouldn't be invited to do the same again. If this DJ managed to get a crowd of people to a political rally then he would presumably be given a chance to speak in the media about his rally.

Heh, Jesse Jackson. Hymie-town.

The Asian and Hispanic populations only really started growing significantly after 1960

Wrong. The Asian populations in the US date back to the 19th century and the racist laws and policies against them are myriad. The Chinese were essentially the niggers of California for a long long time.

Did Jews have to ride at the back of the bus and drink from the "colored" drinking fountains?

No. Most of the Jews emmigrated from lands where they were forced to live in shtetls and ghettos and not permitted to live amongst Christians. They came to this nation without even a mule, let alone forty acres, frequently with literally the clothes on their back. When they arrived they were given an appropriately "Jewish" name so that good American folks wouldn't have to try and pronouce their real names and then tossed into a land where they didn't speak the language and lacked marketable skills. The eastern european Jews were educated in that, while they were near univserally literate in two or three languages (Yiddish, the language of their nation...generally Polish or one of the varieties of Russian, and sometimes Hebrew), they were far more rural than the western european Jews as they were forced to live within the Pale.

Do you know why there are so many Jewish hospitals and Jewish universities in the US? Because it was the only way the Jews would be permitted into the hospitals and universities during the 19th and first half of the 20th century.

No, there were no Jim Crow laws against the Jews (nor were there against Blacks in the north or the west, as it were), but the same bite of bigotry was felt by the Jews. They were not permitted into management in many industries. They were banned from the clubs and the schools. If your last name was a Jewish last name, you weren't going to be permitted into the elks or the Knights of Columbus etc. etc. You weren't going to be permitted into the country clubs. You weren't going to become a manager at the bank. You weren't going to have a successful military career (and to this day, good luck with that one unless you're a chaplain). So Jews started their own businesses...they branched into new industry (yes, hollywood was controlled by the Jews for a long time...because when it was starting up the Jews said "Here's an industry which hasn't blacklisted us...because its just starting, we can do something with this!") They worked hard and instilled in their children a respect for education as a means of advancing in society. They learned to speak english, or if they had difficulty themselves, they ensured their children spoke English.

To this day, it is far more acceptable to be anti-semitic than racist. I, with disturbing regularity, hear educated people making comments like "Jew him down" where they would never make a comment like "nappy headed hos".

We have no affermative action. We have nothing but equal protection under the law...and there are still places in this nation where I would be hesitant to travel alone with my last name.

Wrong. The Asian populations in the US date back to the 19th century and the racist laws and policies against them are myriad. The Chinese were essentially the niggers of California for a long long time.
You and Tuda share the same inability to read. Look at the census figures and pay attention to the populations and population growth rates.

No, there were no Jim Crow laws against the Jews (nor were there against Blacks in the north or the west, as it were), but the same bite of bigotry was felt by the Jews.
Stop trying to make it out like I've said (or even implied) that Jews don't have a hard time here. I know they have and I don't need a lecture on it. As I have said before, as hard a time as they've had here in the US, it isn't as bad as what Blacks have had to endure.

there are still places in this nation where I would be hesitant to travel alone with my last name.
Just imagine if you carried your last name on your skin where everyone could see it.

Well, if the wear Yarmelukes or... I'm really sorry for this but the "Jew Hats" (Dont know the name... black brimmmed hats... associated with orthodox judaism I think?)

That said African americans definately have had it worse than Jewish people overall, but at the same time I agree that [now] its more socially acceptable to stereotype/slur jews than it is to do african americans.

Just imagine if you carried your last name on your skin where everyone could see it.

Well a lot dont need to imagine, that was done in Europe, Nazi Germany to be specific. (Not skin, but clothes)

There were far more slaves than free Blacks prior to 1865. Again, feel free to consult the census data if you don't believe me.What does that have to do with my statement, which was about the blacks who weren't slaves?You and Tuda share the same inability to read. Look at the census figures and pay attention to the populations and population growth rates.No, YOU cannot read. I am not talking about the entire nation. I am talking about the San Francisco area. During the gold rush days, tens of thousands of Chinese came to this area. In just two years, their population went from practically zero to 25,000, and by the 1870s there were about 75,000 - 100,000 Chinese in California (depending where you read about it), out of a total population of half a million. (Today all Asians make up about a third of the City.)

The people who came here were technically free men, but many lived no better than slaves. And they had to fight to even stay in the country during a wave of xenophobia in the late 19th century, while the blacks never faced deportation to Africa.

Are you so blinded by political correctness that you can't open your mind to the possibility that some cultures actually ARE superior to others, and managed to succeed where other, inferior, cultures failed?

The freedom of expression has limitations regarding "fighting words"The "fighting words" doctrine is essentially dead today, given how narrowly the term has been defined by the Supreme Court, and how the states have stopped prosecuting people based on such words.

The Supreme Court has also long held that offensive words deserve First Amendment protection just as any other words do.

The issue never comes up today, but if it did, you would probably get First Amendment protection for making a statement by calling someone a nigger, or a nappy-headed ho, because we as a society no longer accept the notion that certain words warrant a physical response.

a)exactly who did b) exactly what and c)why was this bad and d) how would you have solved A's problem?Brief chronology:

1. Don Imus makes slur.
2. CBS says, "oh ****, there he goes again, let's suspend him for two weeks until things die down."
3. Media, during slow news days, jumps on incident and portrays Don Imus as the scum of the year.
4. Al Sharpton et al. lecture about the evil white men oppressing the poor blacks.
5. First advertiser thinks, "oh ****, I don't the media to turn to us now and ask us why we're advertising on that show," and backs out.
6. Other advertisers think, "oh ****, advertiser #1 backed out, if we don't, we'll look like bigots."
7. Barack Obama demands that CBS fire Imus because he's the scum of the year, and the evil white man.
8. CBS thinks, "holy ****, now if we don't fire the guy, WE'LL look like bigots."
9. CBS fires Imus.

This sequence of events, had NOTHING to do with the financial effect of Imus's slur on the customer base, and had EVERYTHING to do with political correctness, and the fear of companies, held mostly by upper class white people, being labeled bigots by the media.

If the only people who had heard, and had acted on, Imus's comment were the listeners, and had it gone no further, the sequence would have stopped at #2.

This answers, I hope, your (a) and (b).

Now as to (c), why it was bad: because it allowed the concept of political correctness, and not the actual listeners, to decide whether Imus should stay on the air.

Finally, part (d), how it SHOULD have been handled: the media should have left this incident alone, and the political correctness stampede should never have been allowed to occur. The listeners should have been allowed to vote with their radio dials. If Imus's audience shrank to a point where advertising with the show were no longer profitable, THEN the advertisers should have pulled out, for financial, not political correctness, reasons. And if the show was not making enough money because Imus didn't have an audience, THEN CBS should have fired him.

What does that have to do with my statement, which was about the blacks who weren't slaves?
Because you're talking about a small fraction of the overall Black population circa 1865.

No, YOU cannot read. I am not talking about the entire nation. I am talking about the San Francisco area.
I am talking about the entire nation.

The people who came here were technically free men, but many lived no better than slaves.
At least they weren't legally owned by others. It's one thing to live an impoverished existence and have to bust your ass to survive and quite another to do the same thing while you're someones property. Do you really lack the ability to imagine what it must have been like to be a slave?

And they had to fight to even stay in the country during a wave of xenophobia in the late 19th century, while the blacks never faced deportation to Africa.
Blacks were regularly burned alive, hanged, and otherwise brutalized. Deportation is a walk in the park at sunset by comparison.

Are you so blinded by political correctness that you can't open your mind to the possibility that some cultures actually ARE superior to others, and managed to succeed where other, inferior, cultures failed?
/yawn

Blah blah blah Political Correctness blah blah. Give that tired old refrain a break.

Finally, part (d), how it SHOULD have been handled: the media should have left this incident alone

So your agenda here -is- really to restrict the free press. Got'ya. Thanks for a clear answer finally.

Needless to say I think you're nuts.

So your agenda here -is- really to restrict the free press.No, it's to eliminate the faulty opinion of political correctness.

Because you're talking about a small fraction of the overall Black population circa 1865.California was a free state. A handful of slaveholders who brought their slaves from the South protested the law, but that was a brief period and they were a small number. Not to mention, in 1865, during the period of Chinese immigration, slavery was abolished altogether.

Perhaps your politically correct revisionist history textbook has some explanation as to why the Chinese thrived, and the FREE blacks didn't, under the same conditions, in the same area.I am talking about the entire nation.And I am not. Obviously, there were a small number of Chinese compared to the whole nation, because they almost exclusively settled around here at first. I fail to see what that has to do with, well, just about any point in this thread.At least they weren't legally owned by others.Neither were the FREE blacks in California. Next red herring, please.Blacks were regularly burned alive, hanged, and otherwise brutalized.So were the Chinese: beaten up, lynched, starved into submission, and so on. Next red herring, please.Blah blah blah Political Correctness blah blah. Give that tired old refrain a break.I fail to see any other explanation for why you're systematically victimizing all the blacks, while downplaying the hardships and achievements of other cultures, even in areas where they had similar legal rights.

The blacks were even given tons of handouts beginning in the mid 20th century, unlike Asians or Jews, yet most of them failed to seize the opportunity.

Perhaps if the black community adopted role models like Bill Cosby (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/10/MNG20A9TV01.DTL) instead of Malcolm X and Al Sharpton, they'd pull themselves out of their ghettos, just as Asians and Jews did.

Not to mention, in 1865, during the period of Chinese immigration, slavery was abolished altogether.
The Chinese weren't trying to overcome the legacy of slavery.

Perhaps your politically correct revisionist history textbook has some explanation as to why the Chinese thrived, and the FREE blacks didn't, under the same conditions, in the same area.
As I said earlier, Asians had a continuity to their culture that wasn't interrupted (or erased) by slavery. Blacks have had to start out virtually from scratch. Are you too intellectually dishonest to see the relevance to this?

I fail to see what that has to do with, well, just about any point in this thread.
Making generalizations about the entire population based upon a comparatively small subset isn't very useful.

Neither were the FREE blacks in California. Next red herring, please.
They may have been free in California but you wouldn't have to go back very far in their family histories to find that the vast majority of free Blacks descended from slaves.

So were the Chinese: beaten up, lynched, starved into submission, and so on.
Not to the same degree as Blacks. Sorry, try again.

I fail to see any other explanation for why you're systematically victimizing all the blacks
Because Blacks were systematically victimized in this country. Far more so than any other subculture. I'm truly impressed by the gyrations you go through trying to avoid not seeing this.

The blacks were even given tons of handouts beginning in the mid 20th century, unlike Asians or Jews, yet most of them failed to seize the opportunity.
Perhaps if Blacks were given their 40 acres and a mule they'd have had an easier time of it. Instead, they were freed into poverty in a population that resented their release from slavery and persecuted them for it.

The Chinese weren't trying to overcome the legacy of slavery.Neither were the FREE blacks, most of whom had been free since the time of the American Revolution.

Exactly how many centuries does a culture need to "overcome the legacy of slavery" (whatever that means)?As I said earlier, Asians had a continuity to their culture that wasn't interrupted (or erased) by slavery.What, you think they really wanted to go back to their ancestral tribes in Africa? Their previous culture was now irrelevant to them, and would have been of no use, even if it had not been "interrupted (or erased) by slavery."Blacks have had to start out virtually from scratch.You mean, financially? So did the Asians, and the Jews, and many other immigrants. They came here poor as dirt, fleeing their homelands in search of a better life.Making generalizations about the entire population based upon a comparatively small subset isn't very useful.Of course it is. I am comparing the FREE Chinese who came here in the mid 19th century to the FREE blacks who were here at the same time. They both started from scratch and suffered discrimination.

The Chinese prospered. The blacks didn't. Under the same conditions.

Why do you suppose that is, Klath?Not to the same degree as Blacks. Sorry, try again.The Chinese were lynched in many cities, forcibly expelled, had their communities and business burned and looted. There were anti-Chinese riots, segregated schools, and discriminatory laws passed.

I realize these topics aren't ordinarily covered today in the schools, focusing instead on the more politically correct plight of the blacks who were oppressed by the evil white Americans for centuries, so it's not surprising you're unaware of them.

Why don't you educate yourself a little (http://us_asians.tripod.com/timeline-1875.html).

Exactly how many centuries does a culture need to "overcome the legacy of slavery" (whatever that means)?
You know, Tuda, you really are a heartless fvck. Can you really not imagine what it would be like to be property -- to be treated like cattle and have your children and family members traded and sold at auction? To be denied the possibility of making your own life for yourself? The the effects of living that way for generations don't just vanish the day you're freed.

They came here poor as dirt, fleeing their homelands in search of a better life.
Were they slaves (or recent ex-slaves) in their homeland?

Can you really not imagine what it would be like to be property -- to be treated like cattleOf course I can. That is one reason I boycott the cattle industry.

But today, they are not treated like cattle, and have not been treated like cattle for a minimum of 142 years (and in many cases, well over 200 years). On the contrary, they have been given tons of free money, jobs, and higher education admission/scholarships that they didn't deserve on merit.

Some of the blacks seized the opportunity to better themselves, and today, they and their descendants are successful. But most of the blacks didn't.

You know, I'm sure the Asians and Jews would have LOVED to get all that free stuff when they first got here, and I'm equally sure that they would have made use of every single opportunity to better themselves, resulting in them being that much better off today.The the effects of living that way for generations don't just vanish the day you're freed.So how long does it take, Klath? A hundred years? Two hundred? Three hundred? Or do the blacks have to be coddled for eternity?

It's all a bunch of politically correct bull****. Look at the Jews, after they were decimated in WWII and had all their stuff stolen from them, they were given an opportunity and they seized it and made the best of it. Look at Japan and Germany, after they were crushed in WWII, they took the opportunities offered them by their former enemies and turned into major world powers today.

If the blacks were truly motivated to shape their culture, they could have done it in a matter of years, certainly in a matter of a hundred and fifty years. But they weren't, and they didn't.

Too bad, even the politically correct types are getting sick of giving them handouts, now they're on their own.

Geez, in Europe they've got the holocaust deniers, in America we have the slavery/racism deniers.

This is exactly what Tudamorf is talking about.

If you speak, or write, the truth here, and it is against the tradition Liberal social-speek, then you are branded and name-called a NAZI.

And everyone hates NAZIS.

This is the power behind Political Correctness.

"If you are not Politically Correct and buy and spout our nonsense, you are a NAZI, and everyone will hate you."

Thanks for making my point so easy, Pan.

But today, they are not treated like cattle, and have not been treated like cattle for a minimum of 142 years (and in many cases, well over 200 years).
You've brought up culture a number of times in this debate but I don't think you're taking into account the culture of slavery that Blacks emerged from. Education wasn't just de-emphasized for slaves, it was outlawed. Even whites were not immune from punishment for educating slaves. It was thought, probably correctly, that educating slaves would make them rebellious. Do you think that, were it Asians or Jews who had been enslaved, that they would have fared better than Blacks? When you consider that, keep in mind that their cultural emphasis on education would have been soundly snuffed over a generation or two under slavery.

If the blacks were truly motivated to shape their culture, they could have done it in a matter of years
How? How do you teach your children when you're dirt poor, you can't teach them yourself, and you grew up in an environment where learning was punishable by brutality? As if that's not bad enough, they faced this problem in an environment of extreme racism. As Panamah pointed out, it takes a while to bootstrap your way out of that kind of situation -- I don't know how long but it's going to be a struggle that lasts generations.

Do you think that, were it Asians or Jews who had been enslaved, that they would have fared better than Blacks?The Jews were enslaved, and fared better than the blacks afterwards, even though they got no free handouts, and had to roam around in the desert for years before finding a place to settle. And they consistently suffered discrimination and brutality for millennia.How? How do you teach your children when you're dirt poor, you can't teach them yourself, and you grew up in an environment where learning was punishable by brutality?Ask the Chinese, who did it not only in the face of extreme poverty and discrimination, but also linguistic and cultural barriers while constantly under threat of deportation.

It's not so hard Klath, you just have to want to do it, to make a better life for your kids.

Even today, there is a clear difference between the average black family and average Asian family of equal income level in terms of how they provide for their kids, and how they stress education and hard work. Huge difference really, like night and day. Even though the Asian family is given fewer opportunities than the black one.As Panamah pointed out, it takes a while to bootstrapped your way out of that kind of situation -- I don't know how long but it's going to be a struggle that lasts generations.If you sit on your ass and do nothing productive, sure Klath, it's going to take generations -- or forever.

How do you teach your children when you're dirt poor, you can't teach them yourself, and you grew up in an environment where learning was punishable by brutality?
Are you talking now, or 200 years ago?

As if that's not bad enough, they faced this problem in an environment of extreme racism.

Bullsh!t. New immigrants who don't even speak English come here and succeed in the first generation. Starting with nothing but a drive to work and succeed. And make a better life for their children.

People with no boots let alone bootstraps.

It is just a different value system, that's all.

Don't listen to me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q8LxO4wnCQ

Are you talking now, or 200 years ago?
1865 was when the majority of the Blacks in this country gained their freedom.

New immigrants who don't even speak English come here and succeed in the first generation. Starting with nothing but a drive to work and succeed. And make a better life for their children
Did they come here right after being freed from generations of slavery? No? I didn't think so.

1865 was when the majority of the Blacks in this country gained their freedom.
And...

That just means to me that they had a head start on new immigrants.

Did they come here right after being freed from generations of slavery? No? I didn't think so.

I don't know what that has to do with the compare and contrast. They have had a very big head start on anyone who has come here, say, within the last 30 years.

South East Asians, the 'boat people' of the 70s and 80s came here with absolutely nothing, not even shoes in most cases. And they are very successful and moving up quite rapidly the rungs of the socio economic ladder. 20 years ago my community college was full of Viet Namese, Cambodians, and Hmongs. Guess what?, their kids are all going to University now.

When I went back the second time, almost all of them had been replaced by Mexicans; kids of immigrants, or immigrants themselves. And hardly any SE Asians, (no Jews there either).

One of the Cambodians that still went there with me, a friend of mine really, just opened up his first restaurant last month. A nice little Viet Namese and Chinese place. First generation, he came over as a baby.

He had the desire to succeed, he had no straps, he had no boots. And if you want to make comparisons, go rent 'The Killing Fields', if you want to talk about oppression. That is what he and his family came from. They just did not come here looking for a welfare check and food stamps.

If my grandfather beat up a crippled kid when he was 19, does that make me guilty today by some genetic blood line of being guilty today, for the plight of crippled people?

Do I now owe something to all crippled people, today? Something as in extra, more than what I owe anyone else.


I just don't know how this ancestral thing works for you people, Klath. I don't get how guilt can be transferred down through generations.

Additionally.
It is almost like you are saying that Blacks today get a pass on having to work hard, and have high work ethic, and have success values because their ancestors(3+ generations back) had it hard; enslaved. How do people today, who never experienced any of the oppression that you keep bringing up, attach themselves to that oppression which all happened to people who are dead now, by people who are all dead now?

Even if my grandfather lynched Blacks, how does that make me today guilty of his crimes?

I just don't understand. Explain it to me, if you may.

The Jews were enslaved, and fared better than the blacks afterwards, even though they got no free handouts, and had to roam around in the desert for years before finding a place to settle.
Are you talking about slavery practiced in Egypt? As far as I know, the Egyptians didn't go to anywhere near the same lengths as they did here to prevent slaves from learning.

How do you think the Jews and Chinese would have fared as slaves in the brand of slavery practiced here in the US? Why do you think that they would fare better than Blacks?

What has that got to do with anything?

What is this some playground taunt, "My slavery can beat up your slavery".?

Even if my grandfather lynched Blacks, how does that make me today guilty of his crimes?

I just don't understand. Explain it to me, if you may.
Who is saying that you're guilty of anything? I do, however, think that the country is guilty of tolerating slavery and the legalized racism that followed it.

What has that got to do with anything?
It doesn't surprise me that you fail to understand why it would make a difference.

Im sorry but I agree with Fyyr here. My grandpa was a illegal immigrant from mexico who came here with a fake birth certificate and nothing else. Anyways in his own generation he became a engineer building freeways and putting his kids into college, my uncles are doctors, dentists and upper management.

I have no sympathy for people who keep themselves down because its easier to complain about how hard thier ancestors had it then to fight and work to do it right themselves. I suppose I am a bit racist in this sense; my best friend is black and is considered a sellout when all I can see he's done is worked hard and not lingerred on how hard his parents and grandparents had it.

I have never seen such a self destructive people in my life.... EVERY other ethnicity praise thier accomplishments and prosperity. My grandpa wasnt alienated by his own people when he did what he had to to become well off and have a full life. Later on he even gave much back donating substancial chuncks of money to towns in mexico. Every race other then blacks praise those who rise above the rest, and strive to become better off then thier ancestors.

All I see from black people is that if you become wealthy or powerful w/o giving enough recognition to how you've overcome impossible racist odds and constantly shout out about the wrongs against your people, your a sellout...

All we can do is act on what we know, and growing up where I did, the people most alienated in my HS were the black ppl who strived to succeed, because somehow to do that they had to give up thier heritage (of repression and hate?)...

/rant off.

It doesn't surprise me that you fail to understand why it would make a difference.

I really don't know how guilt can be passed on to the next generation.

Are you able to explain it, or not?

Are you talking about slavery practiced in Egypt? As far as I know, the Egyptians didn't go to anywhere near the same lengths as they did here to prevent slaves from learning.Compared to the treatment of slaves in the ancient world, American slaves were VERY well treated. They received plenty of food, shelter, and medical attention, they lived in relative peace, had entertainment, and could practice their religion. They were treated more like pets, than slaves.How do you think the Jews and Chinese would have fared as slaves in the brand of slavery practiced here in the US? Why do you think that they would fare better than Blacks?Of course. If the Chinese were enslaved tomorrow, and for the next 100 years, they would pass on their values, and keep them alive. Particularly if there were another group of Chinese who were free, and an underground that transported Chinese slaves to free lands.

Once they were freed, they'd go right back to building themselves up, and making a better life for themselves and their children. Of this I have no doubt.

Who is saying that you're guilty of anything? I do, however, think that the country is guilty of tolerating slavery and the legalized racism that followed it.

Was,

as in a long time ago. Not is.

Hell, the worst war the US ever fought was over, essentially, ending slavery. No other war, that the US has fought, produced as many casualties.

I would hardly say that is "tolerating" anything.

There are more Amendments to the Constitution that address removing slavery and racism than there are in the Bill of Rights. Still, not much of a tolerant attitude there.

I really don't know how guilt can be passed on to the next generation.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I was talking about the degree to which slaves were prevented from learning.

Who is saying that you're guilty of anything?If I'm not guilty of anything, why am I being punished?

Of this I have no doubt.

Why would anyone doubt it?

You can see it with recent emigres from China today, essentially escaping Communist slavehood. Which they have endured for almost 70 years. Not even considering that they had it pretty bad before Communism.

Hell, the worst war the US ever fought was over, essentially, ending slavery. No other war, that the US has fought, produced as many casualties.
What do you expect when you have Americans fighting Americans. I'm surprised anyone was left standing. :)

There are more Amendments to the Constitution that address removing slavery and racism than there are in the Bill of Rights. Still, not much of a tolerant attitude there.
Think for a second about why those amendments were added and how long it took before they were.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about but I was talking about the degree to which slaves were prevented from learning.

What the hell does that have to do with the state of Blacks today?

There is no connection.



Unless you might be alluding to the notion, that for generations, that Black slaves were bred to be dumb and to not learn, and that trait has been passed on genetically to their descendants. You are not saying that, are you?

If I'm not guilty of anything, why am I being punished?
How are you being punished? If you're referring to taxes, taxes aren't punishment.

What do you expect when you have Americans fighting Americans. I'm surprised anyone was left standing. :)
I am dispelling your notion that it was tolerated.

It was NOT tolerated to such a degree by Americans that the bloodiest war was fought over it.

Therefor, not tolerated.

QED.


Think for a second about why those amendments were added and how long it took before they were.

They were all written long before any Black person alive today was ever born. How does the length of time, it took, affect those Black people living today. They have had those laws their whole lives.

How is that connected?

How are you being punished? If you're referring to taxes, taxes aren't punishment.

Of course they are.

And social engineering.


If I work hard, and pay for my own kids food. And still have to also pay taxes which feeds other people's kids with food, and they don't have to work. It is I who is now a slave.

Working for someone else, without pay, is a slavery. Working and having the fruits of my labor, my money, taken against my will to be given to those who do not work, is slavery.

Unless you might be alluding to the notion, that for generations, that Black slaves were bred to be dumb and to not learn, and that trait has been passed on genetically to their descendants. You are not saying that, are you?
I've addressed this already. Here's what I said:

"You've brought up culture a number of times in this debate but I don't think you're taking into account the culture of slavery that Blacks emerged from. Education wasn't just de-emphasized for slaves, it was outlawed. Even whites were not immune from punishment for educating slaves. It was thought, probably correctly, that educating slaves would make them rebellious. Do you think that, were it Asians or Jews who had been enslaved, that they would have fared better than Blacks? When you consider that, keep in mind that their cultural emphasis on education would have been soundly snuffed over a generation or two under slavery. "

Of course they are.
No, they aren't. They may be unpleasant but they aren't punishment.

How are you being punished?I can't say "nigger" without being fired, roasted alive in the media, and subjected to a black riot. But Chris Rock can say it every 10 seconds, and everyone laughs and applauds.

Until California passed Prop 209 ten years ago, if I wanted to apply to a public school or job, I would be systematically discriminated against for being white. The best public high school in San Francisco, Lowell High School, used to have a quota for Asians (as in, to limit them), before it was illegal. (Private schools still do it, because it's legal.)

I have to pay a huge chunk of taxes to support blacks on welfare. I also have to pay for all those government programs that subsidize employers who hire blacks.

If I have a black worker and fire him, I have a much greater chance of being sued, and of the lawsuit being successful, even though his firing had nothing to do with race.

Just to list a few examples.

I've addressed this already. Here's what I said:

"You've brought up culture a number of times in this debate but I don't think you're taking into account the culture of slavery that Blacks emerged from. Education wasn't just de-emphasized for slaves, it was outlawed. Even whites were not immune from punishment for educating slaves. It was thought, probably correctly, that educating slaves would make them rebellious. Do you think that, were it Asians or Jews who had been enslaved, that they would have fared better than Blacks? When you consider that, keep in mind that their cultural emphasis on education would have been soundly snuffed over a generation or two under slavery. "

You are talking about a time when no one alive was alive.

How is that connected to us now?

My grandfather's actions do not speak anything about me. He died when my father was 10, I never even met him. How am I guilty of what my grandfather did?

Let alone the fact that my grandfather never owned a slave in his life. He worked 12 hour days in anthracite and asbestos mines, and died of lung cancer because of it. If I chose to take his work ethic, but safer, then and only then can you attribute something between us, but that is based on MY actions today.

It was NOT tolerated to such a degree by Americans that the bloodiest war was fought over it.
Go back and read up on the Civil War -- there were a lot more reasons behind it than simply the desire to do rectify the immorality of slavery.

You are talking about a time when no one alive was alive.

How is that connected to us now?
Because people pass on their culture to their children.

My grandfather's actions do not speak anything about me. He died when my father was 10, I never even met him. How am I guilty of what my grandfather did?
Why are you so obsessed with guilt?

I can't say "nigger" without being fired, roasted alive in the media, and subjected to a black riot. But Chris Rock can say it every 10 seconds, and everyone laughs and applauds.
That's because Chris Rock is funny.

Go back and read up on the Civil War -- there were a lot more reasons behind it than simply the desire to do rectify the immorality of slavery.

I got that.

My point still stands, and will give you a hundred(at least) other examples of powerful white people NOT tolerating slavery and racism, if you like.

Slavery is NOT tolerated in this country(unless you are talking about say consensual slavery, which is not really slavery, is it).

Racism exists, but is very much not tolerated in this country. Just look at Imus, I doubt he is even racist, don't doubt that he is just a misanthropist; he hates everybody. But then, it comes down to what exactly you mean when you use the word racism. Negative social interactions based on race should not be tolerated.

That's because Chris Rock is funny.

If a white guy did exactly the same routine, just as funny as Chris Rock, with the same delivery,,,would it really still be funny to you?


edit: of course Chris Rock is funny.

No, it's to eliminate the faulty opinion of political correctness.

By saying to the media "bad bad, you shouldn't have addressed this topic, you should've shut up about it. Speaking out is bad. Horrid horrid free press!"

Which is what I said - you just don't like the way I said it.

You and Tuda share the same inability to read. Look at the census figures and pay attention to the populations and population growth rates.

And you don't realize the history.

The chinese were coming over in great numbers in the 19th century...due to the gold rush and the demand for cheap labor building the railroads and mining out west...and the Whites went ape**** once the Chinese started bringing their wives over and buying land. There was a whole slew of laws aimed at keeping the chinese transient temporary workers, finally culminating in the Naturalization Act of 1870, which banned anyone who wasn't white or african from becoming a naturalized citizen, and the Chinese Exlusion Act of 1882 (i think it was 1882), which severely curtailed the immigration of the chinese. It wasn't until 1942 that the Chinese were permitted to become citizens in the US.

In 1850, the population of California was a bit over 90,000. Roughly 25,000 of that number were Chinese. Then the white man's laws came.

So, please, do look at the census numbers and remember that the the railroads of the west were built on the backs of the Chinese.


Stop trying to make it out like I've said (or even implied) that Jews don't have a hard time here. I know they have and I don't need a lecture on it. As I have said before, as hard a time as they've had here in the US, it isn't as bad as what Blacks have had to endure.

And the blacks here in the US in the past century and a half (at least) had it better than the Jews had it in Europe, where they were fleeing from.

Its a stupid argument you made and an insulting one...suggesting that discrimination against Blacks is inherantly worse than discrimination against Jews.


Just imagine if you carried your last name on your skin where everyone could see it.

You mean so that everyone knows they should make black jokes because there's a black person there? Noone ever worries about making Jew jokes <chuckles>

Discrimination is discrimination and the double standard which exists for Jews is disturbings. When it comes to racial minorities, they lump us in with "white men"...but the "white men" call us Jews.

By saying to the media "bad bad, you shouldn't have addressed this topic, you should've shut up about it. Speaking out is bad. Horrid horrid free press!"You misunderstand. I'm not saying that they should have been forcibly shut up, I'm saying they should not have even wanted to speak. They should have treated Imus talking about nappy-headed hos the same way they would treat Chris Rock talking about nappy-headed hos.

So, please, do look at the census numbers and remember that the the railroads of the west were built on the backs of the Chinese.

Not just the railroads.

They built all(well most of) the levees in the Delta too.

Reclaimed millions of acres of new fertile farm land.

Its a stupid argument you made and an insulting one...suggesting that discrimination against Blacks is inherantly worse than discrimination against Jews.

He's not. He's saying that being legally the property of another person, and being lynched is inherantly worse than being de facto denied a career (oversimplification, but you get my drift).

Do you disagree with this?

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that they should have been forcibly shut up, I'm saying they should not have even wanted to speak. They should have treated Imus talking about nappy-headed hos the same way they would treat Chris Rock talking about nappy-headed hos.

If they said the same thing in the same way with the same level of underlying racism/sexism, why wouldn't they be treated the same way?

This brings me back full circle to what I first posted in this thread - WAS it racist? WAS it sexist?

This brings me back full circle to what I first posted in this thread - WAS it racist? WAS it sexist?Questions reserved only for white/male speakers, apparently.

He's not. He's saying that being legally the property of another person, and being lynched is inherantly worse than being de facto denied a career (oversimplification, but you get my drift).No, that's not what he's saying.

In 1865, those blacks who were slaves, were freed. There were NO slaves left in America. No one was anyone else's property. At this time, there was discrimination, violence, and intolerance towards several groups, not just the blacks.

But Klath claims that the blacks still had it worse because of some undefined "legacy" of slavery, and this "legacy" somehow continued to cripple them to the present day when there legal rights are GREATER than those of the whites or any other group. That is simply bull**** (albeit politically correct bull****).

Questions reserved only for white/male speakers, apparently.

Not at all. As to the implied subtext of my being a bigot in this statement from you: a person's statements reflect on themselves, and only themselves.

I am making a mental note that yet again, these questions do not receive actual answers - sad to see tdg dodge the actual core of the issue really :/

No, that's not what he's saying.

Yes it is. It might not be ALL he is saying, but that is WHAT he is saying.

But Klath claims that the blacks still had it worse because of some undefined "legacy" of slavery, and this "legacy" somehow continued to cripple them to the present day when there legal rights are GREATER than those of the whites or any other group. That is simply bull**** (albeit politically correct bull****).
You are one weasely bastard of a debater. You're ability to selectively ignore my points is quite impressive. I'll attempt again to explain what I meant by the legacy of slavery if you'll quit ignoring it and pretending like you don't understand.

Living for generations under slavery forced Blacks to adapt their culture to life under slavery. While these adaptations made it possible for them to be successful slaves, they made it significantly more difficult to be successful when they were freed. Post slavery, Blacks were uneducated and adverse to education because educating a slave was a punishable offence. Their family structure had been decimated because slave parents did not have dominion over their children, the slave-owners did. They'd learned that there was no real benefit to working harder than you had to because no matter how hard you worked you would be denied the fruits of your labor. Ambitions and aspirations had been largely beaten out of them because they are incompatible with life as a slave. In short, the culture created by slavery was a major liability.

Immigrants from other countries certainly faced significant obstacles but they had not been enslaved for generations and they had not adapted to a culture of slavery. Cultures are passed on from generation to generation and they don't change quickly. It certainly doesn't hasten the process when they're faced with legalized racism and hostility from those in power.

I'm not a fan of quotas so I'm not going to defend them. I think there are other ways that the country can address the inequities resulting from slavery -- like, for example, a much higher investment in schools and programs that educate parents and children together. That's another discussion though.

Its a stupid argument you made and an insulting one...suggesting that discrimination against Blacks is inherantly worse than discrimination against Jews.
I made no such argument. I'm saying that, in this country, blacks were (and are) discriminated against more than Jews. Also, Blacks have suffered more brutality here than Jews.

You mean so that everyone knows they should make black jokes because there's a black person there? Noone ever worries about making Jew jokes <chuckles>
"It's our sense of humor that sustained us as a people for 3000 years."

The "fighting words" doctrine is essentially dead today, given how narrowly the term has been defined by the Supreme Court, and how the states have stopped prosecuting people based on such words.

The Supreme Court has also long held that offensive words deserve First Amendment protection just as any other words do.

The issue never comes up today, but if it did, you would probably get First Amendment protection for making a statement by calling someone a nigger, or a nappy-headed ho, because we as a society no longer accept the notion that certain words warrant a physical response.

Its purpose is more along the lines of an affirmative defense, I suspect, in that I don't think there is a court in the land, even yet today, who will convict a black man from punching someone who calls him a nigger to his face.

It is a narrowly construed standard, and always has been..and I suspect the lines of what becomes "fighting words" have moved from the initial suggestion (calling someone a facist, for instance).

I suspect calling someone an asshole is protected. Calling a Mexican a stupid wetback spic, to their face, on the other hand, is probably not protected speech.

He's not. He's saying that being legally the property of another person, and being lynched is inherantly worse than being de facto denied a career (oversimplification, but you get my drift).

Do you disagree with this?

Yes, but noone has been legally the property of another since 1865...a few decades before the largest influx of Jewish immigrants came over.

That's moot, however, in that the underlying reason for making that statement is to suggest that discrimination against one group of people is somehow a worse offense than the discrimination of another.

"It's our sense of humor that sustained us as a people for 3000 years."

Our sense of humor.

Not the sense of humor of some WASP Jew hater.

That's moot, however, in that the underlying reason for making that statement is to suggest that discrimination against one group of people is somehow a worse offense than the discrimination of another.
I didn't say that and fvck you for implying that I did. Here, let me repeat it in the hopes that that dormant organ you call a brain might actually pick it up this time. I'm saying that, in this country, blacks were (and are) discriminated against more than Jews. Also, Blacks have suffered more brutality here than Jews.

Given your inability to understand, let me add an additional clarification. I am not saying that a given act of discrimination is worse when the target is a black than when it's target it a Jew. I'm saying blacks have been targeted more frequently and by more brutal acts of discrimination. Can you understand the difference between what I'm saying and what you are claiming I said? It may be a bit subtle for you but if you buckle down and try to think like a big boy you might be able to figure it out.

Our sense of humor.

Not the sense of humor of some WASP Jew hater.
Most of the Jewish jokes I've heard have been told by Jews.

I am making a mental note that yet again, these questions do not receive actual answers - sad to see tdg dodge the actual core of the issue really :/Of course they don't receive answers, because they raise a larger question -- why are you asking them at all? Why don't ask you ask them about a Chris Rock performance?

Cultures are passed on from generation to generation and they don't change quickly.Then why didn't THEIR culture (which you seem to be claiming is NOT inferior) pass on from generation to generation while they were slaves? Especially considering a large number of them were only slaves for a very short time (or, indentured servants really) and had hundreds of years to NOT be slaves and to emulate the successful cultures all around them.

Put differently, let's say you were an African slave and you've forgotten your (supposedly superior) African tribal culture. You're now freed, and you see all around you whites, Asians, and Jews prospering by following a simple formula. You'd want to follow that formula, too, and prosper. And some blacks did precisely that, while the majority didn't.

OMG! Someone riled up Klath! I don't think I've seen that happen before!

OMG! Someone riled up Klath! I don't think I've seen that happen before!
I have to admit, it does actually makes the debate more fun. :)

Then why didn't THEIR culture (which you seem to be claiming is NOT inferior) pass on from generation to generation while they were slaves?
How? It was against the law to educate slaves and they were brutalized for even trying. Their thoughts and actions were carefully cultivated by slave-owners in order to optimize their use as slaves. Even if you overlook that, a culture that works well for the circumstances it evolved in is unlikely to work well when it's dragged off to another country and enslaved.

How?Don't ask me, the "cultures are passed on from generation to generation" thing is YOUR theory.Even if you overlook that, a culture that works well for the circumstances it evolved in is unlikely to work well when it's dragged off to another country and enslaved.Are you tacitly agreeing that their culture was inferior?

Put differently, let's say you were an African slave and you've forgotten your (supposedly superior) African tribal culture. You're now freed, and you see all around you whites, Asians, and Jews prospering by following a simple formula. You'd want to follow that formula, too, and prosper. And some blacks did precisely that, while the majority didn't.

Probably because they aren't coming from 1 culture but from many. And most of them even didn't have a commun language before adopting the language of their master or creating 'créol'. It must be hard to make thatyour culture survive when you are the last one living by it (or seem to you so).

Eridalafar

Don't ask me, the "cultures are passed on from generation to generation" thing is YOUR theory.
Pathetic dodge. Do you dispute that cultures are passed down from generation to generation?

Are you tacitly agreeing that their culture was inferior?
In as much as the culture that Blacks were left with at the time that slavery was abolished left them ill prepared for life as freemen, yeah. Have you only just now figured that out? Re-read posts 181 (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=223822&postcount=181) and 222 (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=223889&postcount=222) if you need clarification. I'd also point out what should be obvious even to you -- Blacks were forced, physically, against their will, and through the power of law to adopt that culture.

Are you tacitly agreeing that their culture was inferior?

Are you tacitly arguing that white culture is supreme?

Are you tacitly arguing that white culture is supreme?Have you been paying attention? I've spent pages now explaining why Asian and Jewish cultures are superior to American black culture.

I haven't talked about whites specifically, because the deck has been stacked in their favor for so long, the question is irrelevant.

Probably because they aren't coming from 1 culture but from many. And most of them even didn't have a commun language before adopting the language of their masterThe same can be said of Asians and Jews who came to America.

In as much as the culture that Blacks were left with at the time that slavery was abolished left them ill prepared for life as freemen, yeah.Are you suggesting that what they were left with, was less than what they originally had?

I'm confused how this ties in to your whole concept of original sin for white people, who have to pay today for some undefined "legacy" of slavery.

The same can be said of Asians and Jews who came to America.


Not so true, they where able to regroup, and when you have keep contact with your family and then they come to rejoin you, you aren't so cut from your culture (pictures, writing, language, philosophy..

Why form bond with another, when you know that your owner will probably separ you if he see that you have formed a bond, so he can keep you powerless?

When you never have lived free, becoming suddetly totaly free can be a nightmare, and you will probably make wrong choice, because you don't know that they are wrong choices or they are the easier ways to take. Be today standarts, all the ex-slaves will have needed some heavy psi-therapy, before becoming free....

Don't forget that slaves can get reward by denouncing other slaves, so building the trust needed to build a positive culture is a lot harder. And when the ones wanting to get better are see as wanting to become "whites" and the other ex-slaves worth nothing be doing so.

And you talk a lot of culture, but what exactly is a culture, what is inclued in a culture?

Eridalafar

Are you suggesting that what they were left with, was less than what they originally had?
It's pointless to discuss the merits of a culture without some sort of context. The culture Blacks had prior to being enslaved allowed them to prosper in the environment that it evolved in. In that regard, it was vastly superior to the culture that they were left with after slavery was abolished.

I'm confused how this ties in to your whole concept of original sin for white people, who have to pay today for some undefined "legacy" of slavery.
Where did I mention "original sin for white people"? I think it's a "sin" that our country allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.

When you never have lived free, becoming suddetly totaly free can be a nightmare, and you will probably make wrong choice, because you don't know that they are wrong choices or they are the easier ways to take.How does "sudden" now become redefined to mean 142 to 200+ years?

And how did all the successful blacks in history manage to become successful, while the rest of their race languished?

The culture Blacks had prior to being enslaved allowed them to prosper in the environment that it evolved in.Not really. That's why they were conquered by Europeans, who enslaved them.In that regard, it was vastly superior to the culture that they were left with after slavery was abolished.Compared to their distant cousins in Africa, black Americans live a life of luxury. Most Africans would LOVE to trade places.Where did I mention "original sin for white people"?You didn't use the words, just the concept. White Americans (and any other successful American groups) are born with the original sin of some Southern slave owners 142+ years ago. And we must constantly and publicly atone for this sin.

Not really. That's why they were conquered by Europeans, who enslaved them.
If you want to take the position that more aggressive cultures are superior to the cultures they victimize and/or assimilate you might consider where it's leading. The aggressive cultures are spreading themselves over the planet, plundering its resources, and leaving it in ruins. When that runs its course then perhaps we can reexamine which culture was really superior.

That's moot, however, in that the underlying reason for making that statement is to suggest that discrimination against one group of people is somehow a worse offense than the discrimination of another.

No, Aidon, the underlying reason is to suggest that some TYPES of discrimination are worse than others.

Of course they don't receive answers, because they raise a larger question -- why are you asking them at all? Why don't ask you ask them about a Chris Rock performance?

Because we're not talking about him. You're bringing him up as an example, fine. That's your example. You handle him. I'll stick with what whatshisname said.

I've answered your larger question before. Now can you answer mine?

If you want to take the position that more aggressive cultures are superior to the cultures they victimize and/or assimilateThat's not what I said. I rebutted your argument that "The culture Blacks had prior to being enslaved allowed them to prosper in the environment that it evolved in." If they're easily conquered and enslaved, they're not too prosperous, now are they?

Because we're not talking about him. You're bringing him up as an example, fine. That's your example. You handle him. I'll stick with what whatshisname said.Right, because only slurs by white men are worth talking about.I've answered your larger question before.Link? Now can you answer mine?I can't get into his head, so no, I can't tell you whether he was actually being sexist and racist or just playing his part.

You are one weasely bastard of a debater. You're ability to selectively ignore my points is quite impressive. I'll attempt again to explain what I meant by the legacy of slavery if you'll quit ignoring it and pretending like you don't understand... ...It certainly doesn't hasten the process when they're faced with legalized racism and hostility from those in power.

So in essence you are saying that their culture was created to be an inferior one, and that it continues to be an inferior one, by design?

If the culture is inferior, and any culture which values non education(ignorance) and laziness(not working harder) is inferior, then why is it the responsibility of the larger culture to change and accommodate it? The inferior culture should be encouraged to change, to become more superior, should it not?

Not the other way around, where the larger culture must adapt to it, or at least accept it as it is.