I'm sorry to bring back all the old arguments that for some reason are immediately discarded, but no one makes a fuss when a rapper calls someone a nappy headed ho. It's a colloquallism, and it's only regarded as a racist comment because someone from another race said it.
No crap!
When a black rapper says it, the racial component of it is disregarded. It's still an insult, but not a racial one. When some old white guy says it, the racial part of the insult becomes more meaningful. That is just the way it is.
But you see, that's my point. It shouldn't become more or less meaningful based on who says it. Just because a white guy says it, doesn't mean that he's trying to infer that black people are inferior. He may mean the EXACT same thing as when the black guy says it. If it's an insult, it's an insult, and defining the meaning of a phrase based on the color of the skin of the person who says it is not a positive step towards equality.
Dude. The insult has racial connotations built into it. It's not just a generic insult.
But....but...you just said the insult doesn't have racial connotations when a black person says it....
Very good junior. Now read that post again. Slowly.
I did, I read it a few times. You can insult me all you want, but you said, in turn, that when a black rapper says it, it's an insult, but not a racial one. Then you said that the insult has racial connotations built into it. Shit, regardless of whose right or whose wrong, I'll just take with me the fact that I was able to at least respect other people's views, behave like an adult, and hold an intelligent converstation. That is something a good deal of people on this thread cannot do. Welcome to the internet, I guess.
The particular context of Imus' punishment is a byproduct of his role in a capitalist entertainment medium.
Not exactly, no.
He still had the ratings. It was more a factor of the value of a political attack spreading to GM and Proctor & Gamble vs. the value of them advertising somewhere else. Sure, the major weapon was a market force, and I respect that, but the impetus was political.
You might also argue that if the government threatened to fine GM and P&G because of what Imus said, and therefore they pulled out, then it was still capitalism and not government censorship.
Some ideas deserve marginalization. I would put racism in that category.
If there were some compelling argument for racism, then we might well see more widespread acceptance of racism. Barring that, I'm fine with a widespread rejection of such statements.
Some ideas deserve marginalization. I would put racism in that category.
If there were some compelling argument for racism, then we might well see more widespread acceptance of racism. Barring that, I'm fine with a widespread rejection of such statements.
Yep, I'm a huge racist, you caught me. Seriously, do you only read every other word, or something? I'm all for equality, I just don't think that fighting over words is a good step towards that. Now, fighting for equal pay, or equal opportunity, that's a good idea. Getting everyone in a huff over three little words isn't helping anything, regardless of how mean-spirited or racist the words are. Fighting for true equality is one thing, fighting to get some old white guy fired because he said something stupid is another. While I think he should be fired, I don't think it really should have any bearing on our racial climate, and the fact that people are giving these three words so much power is doing more harm than good.
The particular context of Imus' punishment is a byproduct of his role in a capitalist entertainment medium.
Not exactly, no.
He still had the ratings. It was more a factor of the value of a political attack spreading to GM and Proctor & Gamble vs. the value of them advertising somewhere else. Sure, the major weapon was a market force, and I respect that, but the impetus was political.
I'm not really sure I see term "political" in the same way you do, Yar. It seems to me that Imus' sponsors simply didn't want to be associated with a guy who says things that a lot of people find offensive after this controversy held him up in a public spotlight, and that MSNBC ultimately made a financial calculation. I'm not really gung-ho for the market having narrow control of public dialogue, but it seems to me that it worked basically the way it was supposed to in this context.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Some ideas deserve marginalization. I would put racism in that category.
If there were some compelling argument for racism, then we might well see more widespread acceptance of racism. Barring that, I'm fine with a widespread rejection of such statements.
Yep, I'm a huge racist, you caught me. Seriously, do you only read every other word, or something? I'm all for equality, I just don't think that fighting over words is a good step towards that. Now, fighting for equal pay, or equal opportunity, that's a good idea. Getting everyone in a huff over three little words isn't helping anything, regardless of how mean-spirited or racist the words are.
He didn't call you racist, man. I don't think anyone in this thread has. Stop this.
"Rejecting" as in exacting punishment upon those who speak them.
Yeah, okay. In any social setting, your punishment for behaving like a cock might well end up being your rejection from that social group. Since Imus was a national media figure, his rejection took on a national scale.
The fucking HUGE difference being that there was no plurality or majority of Imus' audience who wanted him fired. It was entirely external.
The members of his audience are not uniquely qualified to decide whether his remarks are offensive, nor are their opinions automatically worth more in the national conversation about Imus. They might be worth more to advertisers, though in this case the behavior of the advertisers doesn't seem to reflect that.
You're seem to be espousing the "you can change the channel" mentality, except, obviously in this case, that wasn't the mentality. It was "I don't care if his audience still accepts him, punish that fucker for what he said!"
What I'm espousing is the mentality that Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and anyone else who chooses to do so is entirely within their right to call for Imus to be fired. The people who changed the channel here were the networks who carried Imus and the advertisers who are their source of income.
Some ideas deserve marginalization. I would put racism in that category.
If there were some compelling argument for racism, then we might well see more widespread acceptance of racism. Barring that, I'm fine with a widespread rejection of such statements.
Yep, I'm a huge racist, you caught me. Seriously, do you only read every other word, or something? I'm all for equality, I just don't think that fighting over words is a good step towards that. Now, fighting for equal pay, or equal opportunity, that's a good idea. Getting everyone in a huff over three little words isn't helping anything, regardless of how mean-spirited or racist the words are.
He didn't call you racist, man. I don't think anyone in this thread has. Stop this.
Sorry, I may have construed his comment as referring to what I was saying in an earlier post. Ugh, this thread has gotten me on edge a bit, sorry about that.
Thanatos, my whole argument is that context does matter. The color of a person's skin should not. One could argue that Imus said these words in a joking context, but that doesn't seem to matter because he's white, and only black people can say these words in a joking context.
Really, I'm done with this argument, I've said what I needed to say, I thought I was making a pretty intelligent case, but people cannot contain themselves from insulting anyone who doesn't think like they do. I'm all for intelligent conversation, and that is not helped by snarky comments, and people who only wait for their turn to talk. If you never consider anyone else's point of view, I don't see how anyone gets anywhere. Maybe I just have different views on racism because I live in a pretty diverse population, and have an extremely diverse group of friends. I just think that battling racist words isn't really accomplishing anything in the way of battling racist ideas, in fact it's only making the problem worse.
And the idea that "context doesn't matter" is patently ridiculous. I'm sorry that my not giving proper respect to a really fucking stupid hypothesis has offended you so very much.
It seems to me that Imus' sponsors simply didn't want to be associated with a guy who says things that a lot of people find offensive after this controversy held him up in a public spotlight, and that MSNBC ultimately made a financial calculation.
Hey, maybe they even made a decision based on their personal principles. Either way, bully for them.
I'm not really sure I see term "political" in the same way you do, Yar. It seems to me that Imus' sponsors simply didn't want to be associated with a guy who says things that a lot of people find offensive after this controversy held him up in a public spotlight, and that MSNBC ultimately made a financial calculation. I'm not really gung-ho for the market having narrow control of public dialogue, but it seems to me that it worked basically the way it was supposed to in this context.
Read my last edit. Market forces were a tool, but not the core issue here. Dixie Chicks pissing off their customers was a market issue. This is a political issue using market forces as a weapon.
And the idea that "context doesn't matter" is patently ridiculous. I'm sorry that my not giving proper respect to a really fucking stupid hypothesis has offended you so very much.
I guess you haven't been following this thread very much. "Context doesn't matter" was the crux of the argument against Nickle for some time.
Yar on
0
Options
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
While not exactly a government censorship issue, the notion that our society (or, rather, some pluarality of it) considers certain statements unacceptable is in direct violation of the concept of free exchange of ideas.
I'm not convinced of this. Part of the free exchange of ideas is the rejection of certain ideas, and the particular set of "racially insensitive words" represent an idea that the plurality is rejecting.
My only problem with this idea is that, for example, when a white supremacist group decides to hold a gathering or a march to proclaim their views to the TV cameras or whoever will listen, we are by law forced to allow them to do so. Police and SWAT teams are dispatched to enforce peace and make sure that no one is allowed to "reject" the white supremacists in their faces. If we were able to simply reject certain ideas as a part of the free exchange of them, and free speech in general, then there would be an acceptance that certain universally hateful things like this aren't allowed.
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
"Context doesn't matter" doesn't just mean "who said it." A white person saying something and a black person saying the same exact thing is not a difference of context. Just wanted to clear that up, because it seems like some people are using "context" to simply mean the source of the quote.
While not exactly a government censorship issue, the notion that our society (or, rather, some pluarality of it) considers certain statements unacceptable is in direct violation of the concept of free exchange of ideas.
I'm not convinced of this. Part of the free exchange of ideas is the rejection of certain ideas, and the particular set of "racially insensitive words" represent an idea that the plurality is rejecting.
My only problem with this idea is that, for example, when a white supremacist group decides to hold a gathering or a march to proclaim their views to the TV cameras or whoever will listen, we are by law forced to allow them to do so. Police and SWAT teams are dispatched to enforce peace and make sure that no one is allowed to "reject" the white supremacists in their faces. If we were able to simply reject certain ideas as a part of the free exchange of them, and free speech in general, then there would be an acceptance that certain universally hateful things like this aren't allowed.
Except that Imus hasn't been silenced. He got fired. From a private company. No one is forcing any private entity to facilitate that white supremacist march.
Market forces were a tool, but not the core issue here. Dixie Chicks pissing off their customers was a market issue. This is a political issue using market forces as a weapon.
But... mobilizing market forces as part of a political movement is completely legitimate. The controversey resulted in a de facto boycott of Imus by advertisers, and ultimately by the networks too.
I'm sorry to bring back all the old arguments that for some reason are immediately discarded, but no one makes a fuss when a rapper calls someone a nappy headed ho. It's a colloquallism, and it's only regarded as a racist comment because someone from another race said it.
No crap!
When a black rapper says it, the racial component of it is disregarded. It's still an insult, but not a racial one. When some old white guy says it, the racial part of the insult becomes more meaningful. That is just the way it is.
But you see, that's my point. It shouldn't become more or less meaningful based on who says it. Just because a white guy says it, doesn't mean that he's trying to infer that black people are inferior. He may mean the EXACT same thing as when the black guy says it. If it's an insult, it's an insult, and defining the meaning of a phrase based on the color of the skin of the person who says it is not a positive step towards equality.
Dude. The insult has racial connotations built into it. It's not just a generic insult.
But....but...you just said the insult doesn't have racial connotations when a black person says it....
Very good junior. Now read that post again. Slowly.
I did, I read it a few times. You can insult me all you want, but you said, in turn, that when a black rapper says it, it's an insult, but not a racial one. Then you said that the insult has racial connotations built into it. Shit, regardless of whose right or whose wrong, I'll just take with me the fact that I was able to at least respect other people's views, behave like an adult, and hold an intelligent converstation. That is something a good deal of people on this thread cannot do. Welcome to the internet, I guess.
Oh please, you are purposely playing at being dumb. That is why people are gettting snippy with you. Don't pretend to be all innocent.
Again:
When a black rapper says it (even though the insult is partly racial based) the racial part is lessened because he is black and he is addressing the insult towards black athletes. You can assume that he isn't insulting their race.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
And the idea that "context doesn't matter" is patently ridiculous. I'm sorry that my not giving proper respect to a really fucking stupid hypothesis has offended you so very much.
I guess you haven't been following this thread very much. "Context doesn't matter" was the crux of the argument against Nickle for some time.
Whoops, sorry, I misread what he was saying.
Though, saying skin color isn't part of context is still pretty stupid. Everything is part of context.
Thanatos, my whole argument is that context does matter. The color of a person's skin should not. One could argue that Imus said these words in a joking context, but that doesn't seem to matter because he's white, and only black people can say these words in a joking context.
Really, I'm done with this argument, I've said what I needed to say, I thought I was making a pretty intelligent case, but people cannot contain themselves from insulting anyone who doesn't think like they do. I'm all for intelligent conversation, and that is not helped by snarky comments, and people who only wait for their turn to talk. If you never consider anyone else's point of view, I don't see how anyone gets anywhere. Maybe I just have different views on racism because I live in a pretty diverse population, and have an extremely diverse group of friends. I just think that battling racist words isn't really accomplishing anything in the way of battling racist ideas, in fact it's only making the problem worse.
And the idea that "context doesn't matter" is patently ridiculous. I'm sorry that my not giving proper respect to a really fucking stupid hypothesis has offended you so very much.
Did you actually read what I said? I've bolded the first sentence for you. Thanks for calling my ideas stupid though, that's very mature of you. Do you not understand what context is? Imus may not have meant those words to be malicious, maybe he said them in the context of a joke (I DON'T KNOW), but how is it fair to automatically assume that, because he's white, he meant those words in the most hurtful way possible? Here's the crux of my other argument, and I'm going to make this realllllllllllllly simple:
The movement for equality would be better served by attacked the underlying cause of the problem, rather than attacking the words that some old white guy uses. Words are just that, words, and the only power that words can have is the power that is given to them. Now, attacking an old white talk show host who says some racist shit will get you the headlines, but is it really doing anything to help?
It doesn't matter what I say though, so I guess I'll just leave the thread. Sorry, I guess I pissed people off enough to start slinging mud at me. Maybe if you read what I typed, though...bah...nevermind. I'm wrong and you're right.
Market forces were a tool, but not the core issue here. Dixie Chicks pissing off their customers was a market issue. This is a political issue using market forces as a weapon.
So... when the peolpe who are insulted by "nappy-headed hos" decide to use market forces, that's politicizing things and using market forces as a weapon, but when the people who are insulted by "we're ashamed he's from Texas" decide to use market forces, that's just a market issue.
And the idea that "context doesn't matter" is patently ridiculous. I'm sorry that my not giving proper respect to a really fucking stupid hypothesis has offended you so very much.
I guess you haven't been following this thread very much. "Context doesn't matter" was the crux of the argument against Nickle for some time.
Whoops, sorry, I misread what he was saying.
Though, saying skin color isn't part of context is still pretty stupid. Everything is part of context.
Yes, skin color is a part of context. That's why we have racism.
EDIT: To clarify, saying that a white person can't say something because they're white, regardless of any other circumstances, is pretty racist. I'm not saying I should be able to say the n-word, I don't think anyone should. But at it's bare bones, it's still discrimination based on the color of someone's skin.
The movement for equality would be better served by attacked the underlying cause of the problem, rather than attacking the words that some old white guy uses. Words are just that, words, and the only power that words can have is the power that is given to them. Now, attacking an old white talk show host who says some racist shit will get you the headlines, but is it really doing anything to help?
It doesn't matter what I say though, so I guess I'll just leave the thread. Sorry, I guess I pissed people off enough to start slinging mud at me. Maybe if you read what I typed, though...bah...nevermind. I'm wrong and you're right.
Oh, sweet Jesus, excuse me. Forgive so very greatly for turning you over to Pontius Pilate, there. Martyr yourself much? :roll:
Goddamn, get over yourself.
In any case, I don't see how the movement for equality would be better served by "oh, conservative white guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."
But... mobilizing market forces as part of a political movement is completely legitimate. The controversey resulted in a de facto boycott of Imus by advertisers, and ultimately by the networks too.
Yeah, I get that. Ultimately, assuming the audience and the speaker and the medium and the sponsor are all neutral on the issue, there isn't much difference between society organizing a political move against speech and the government doing it. Etiher way the individual loses some right to free speech due to political power struggles.
The nappy-headed hoes and the people offended by that statement are not Imus' audience. They aren't his customers. They launched an attack on a market they aren't a part of.
That is not the same as deciding not to watch him anymore. Or deciding not to go to anymore Dixie Chick concerts.
In any case, I don't see how the movement for equality would be better served by "oh, conservative white guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."
As opposed to "oh, rapper black guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."? I've never heard a reasonable answer to the question why color of skin can be an acceptable basis for dictating behavior.
Ultimately, assuming the audience and the speaker and the medium and the sponsor are all neutral on the issue, there isn't much difference between society organizing a political move against speech and the government doing it. Etiher way the individual loses some right to free speech due to political power struggles.
The key difference is that the government is uniquely situated to become a tyranny and violate the people's right to speech, which is why it is uniquely forbidden to do so in the first amendment. That's sort of the whole philosophy behind the bill of rights.
The movement that led to the firing of Imus all took place outside the government, and thus was an act of the people who are the primary constituency of a democracy. Everyone who took action that eventually led to the firing of Imus did so without government coersion. This is only a violation of the individual's right to free speech if you assume that right includes the freedom to speak free of social judgment, which it does not. We are all free to judge Imus and act on those judgments.
In any case, I don't see how the movement for equality would be better served by "oh, conservative white guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."
As opposed to "oh, rapper black guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."? I've never heard a reasonable answer to the question why color of skin can be an acceptable basis for dictating behavior.
Personally, I don't think we should, however if you can't see how white people saying it is more of a problem than black people saying it...
Thanatos on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not saying I should be able to say the n-word, I don't think anyone should. But at it's bare bones, it's still discrimination based on the color of someone's skin.
If it's discrimination, then it's the sort that I've only ever found self-entitled brats to care about.
Frame the issue slightly differently: if a gamer was ragging on gamers, would you take it differently than if a jock was ragging on gamers? What if that jock had a history of beating up on gamers?
The key difference is that the government is uniquely situated to become a tyranny and violate the people's right to speech, which is why it is uniquely forbidden to do so in the first amendment. That's sort of the whole philosophy behind the bill of rights.
The movement that led to the firing of Imus all took place outside the government, and thus was an act of the people who are the primary constituency of a democracy. Everyone who took action that eventually led to the firing of Imus did so without government coersion. This is only a violation of the individual's right to free speech if you assume that right includes the freedom to speak free of social judgment, which it does not. We are all free to judge Imus and act on those judgments.
You make a good case for the distinction, and I acknowledge it.
Man, I wish I had read the thread on Michael Richards so I could compare / contrast. Some interesting parallels there. Richards obviously flew off the handle but still maintained that he was making jokes (albeit in very poor humor). This happened in a private club, in the context of a comedian doing a bit, and he was still dragged across the coals in the public media and basically blackballed.
With this as the case, I find it hard to lend much credence to arguments that conclude Imus's Fall and the media reaction being due to the fact that:
1) He was on national radio / TV when he made his comments;
2) He was targeting a group of innocent women; or
3) It was unclear that he was acting as a comedian (people who believe he was running a sports/political show).
None of these elements were present in the Richards debacle and he was treated basically the same way as Imus. I have never listened to Imus and think he got exactly what he deserved (he exercised his free speech, others exercised theirs, and he lost), but let's look at the reasons he was fired. It has nothing to do with the 3 facts listed above that others have alluded to. He made some incredibly insensitive / offensive statements that, given that they come from a white man, are just not tolerated by society REGARDLESS of the context. I also have no problem with this.
Every culture / society has standards and those norms are not applied equally to every ethnic group. That is the reality. People who are complaining about double standards and reverse racism, etc. need to shut up and understand that because of the history of this nation, they (as a white male, etc.) have certain restrictions based on their ability to express themselves (if they want to keep there job, not get beat to a pulp, etc.). It's a small price to pay to enjoy the priveleges a caucasian GENERALLY enjoys over his minority brethern.
I'm not saying I should be able to say the n-word, I don't think anyone should. But at it's bare bones, it's still discrimination based on the color of someone's skin.
If it's discrimination, then it's the sort that I've only ever found self-entitled brats to care about.
Frame the issue slightly differently: if a gamer was ragging on gamers, would you take it differently than if a jock was ragging on gamers? What if that jock had a history of beating up on gamers?
But that is not analogous. Are you saying that skin color is equal to who you are as a person?
First, and correct me if I'm wrong (I most often am), I don't think the phrase 'nappy headed hos' was coined by white people as a derrogatory term, and in fact, I've never heard a white person use it before, racist or not. I'm arguing that his comment wasn't racist because of the context of the comment. He used a colloquial phrase in response to his co-host saying the Rutgers team looked burly and mean. He chuckled while he said this, in jest (not a chuckle as in "that'll teach those blacks!"). Now I won't argue that he should've chosen his words more wisely, and it was insulting to the team, but no more insulting then calling them burly and mean. It just seems to me that people are putting more of an emphasis on the color of his skin than the context of the phrase.
I've said before though, I don't know what he was thinking, so I can't say for certain. But the people who saw a news ticker that said "Imus says 'nappy headed hoes' on the air" and were outraged, acted unfairly. Do you not think it is wrong to take this phrase, and say 'black people can say this, either as a joke or as an insult, but if a white person says it, it can ONLY be derrogatory, there is NO WAY he could just be joking'?
All I'm trying to say is that intent should far outweigh semantics. I can't really speak for his intent, and in reality no one can but the man himself. But what I inferred from what I've heard is that he didn't mean it in a 'lol all black people suck' way. I can understand if other people think he meant it maliciously, but judging it based soley on three words taken out of context is pretty rash. I can understand that people were offended by the comment, the team most of all, but I don't think that when he said it he meant to imply that ALL black people are 'nappy headed hoes'. Labeling it as an extremely racist phrase, soley because the person saying it is white, regardless of context, is a bit mis-guided.
Again, to reiterate, I am not saying Imus shouldn't have been fired, and I'm not supporting his right to say whatever he wants. It was a mistake to use the words that he chose to use, but not an OMFG CALL CNN AND PUT THIS ON THE NEWS EVERYWHERE kind of mistake. I liken it to a broadcaster saying 'fuck' on the air accidentally, which will generally get you fired as well. Imus may have meant the words to be malicious and derrogatory, but is it wrong to automatically assume this was the case, because he's a white man using black vernacular?
If you want to fight racism, go after the employer who won't hire black people. Go after the cop that pulls over any black man in a nice car. Go after the politicians that pass laws to benefit their rich white friends. Words are just words, and they really have no tangible impact, they can be ignored, or the like in this case, the person saying the words can have their soap box pulled from under them. Going after an aging talk show host who accidentally used a phrase that's considered 'taboo' for white people to say may get you the headlines, but it isn't going to accomplish anything to better our society. Everyone here loves to point out strawman arguments, but they can't recognize this one?
But that is not analogous. Are you saying that skin color is equal to who you are as a person?
No, I'm saying that being a member of any group, be it ethinic, social, or religious, creates a certain conversational presumption. If I say to another gay man "we're all just a bunch of little girls at heart, aren't we?" then he will most likely assume that I mean it in either a joking manner or am merely poking lighthearted fun. If a straight man says to me that "you're all just a bunch of little girls at heart, aren't you?" then I'll definitely be more guarded, because there's no inherent presumption that he's not attacking gays. If it's a good friend of mine, then regardless of his orientation, the presumption will be in favor of innocent fun, and I will most likely assume that he meant it in a silly way. If it's a stranger, however, then I'll have to try to assertain through conversational and social clues what he really meant by the comment (and likely be quite uncomfortable in the process). If it's a stranger who also happens to be an evangelical Christian with a history of gay-bashing, then I will most definitely take offense, as his meaning will be as clear as meaning ever is. Imus falls into the last case. Did you see the list of racist tripe Elkamil posted, all credited to his show? The Williams sisters belong in the National Geographic?
It's also worth noting that there are some comments that no amount of context will be able to excuse. There's simply no way of reading the comment that the Williams sisters belong in the National Geographic such that it's not racist, and were one of my friends to say it I would feel obliged to confront them over it, despite all the normal presumptions I have about my friends being well-meaning people.
'black people can say this, either as a joke or as an insult, but if a white person says it, it can ONLY be derrogatory, there is NO WAY he could just be joking'?
No, it's not impossible for a white person to say something that might toe the line, but still have it be clear that the person has no ill intent. However, with white people, there isn't the strong presumption that they aren't being racist in any way. It has to be clear through other conversiational and social clues: for example, my friends have demonstrated to me over long periods of time that they're supportive and accepting.
Imus has demonstrated the opposite.
Hell, the same applies to black people talking about people of Asian descent: there's no longer a presumption of innocence. It's all about groups talking about each other versus talking about themselves.
Furthermore, no one is saying that black people are infallible beacons of virtue. I was actually pretty offended by some of the stuff Cosby has said about black youth culture and language--I thought it was offensive, and demonstrated a cultural bias and lack of understanding. It's just that generally we interpret the comments of Cosby to be not-racist-against blacks, seeing as he himself is black, and the idea that he's racist against his own race is generally a mind-boggler.
If you want to fight racism, go after the employer who won't hire black people. Go after the cop that pulls over any black man in a nice car. Go after the politicians that pass laws to benefit their rich white friends. Going after an aging talk show host who accidentally used a phrase that's considered 'taboo' for white people to say may get you the headlines, but it isn't going to accomplish anything to better our society.
Imus is a racist fuck who spread hate. I think taking him off the air accomplishes something.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand the full extent of racial priviledge. Living in a country where famous guys on the air are constantly dropping one-liners about how you, and your race, are apes and maids, affects you. Living in a country where no one does that, (or if they do, they're completely marginalized), is empowering. Racial priviledge does not consist solely in explicit patronage from the powers that be.
I wasn't reffering to Imus' history, it's been made clear that he's made biggoted statements before, I'm just saying that this isn't neccessarily one of them. Regardless of how cliche, or "awww, look at the poor white boy crying reverse racism" it is, do you think it's fair that I'm judged for being white as being a spoiled brat, and that white people get all the priveledges? I've grown up poorer than most anyone I know, I've been homeless, I don't have a family to speak of. But when I go into a 'black neighborhood', which I often do (I grew up in this neighborhood), I get treated like a soft little momma's boy based on prejudice. My family never owned slaves, and if they did, I can't be judged soley based on what my ancestors did. But there's a stigma that's given to white people soley based on what other white people do. And I'm not willing to battle over which stigma hurts more, because that's pointless. Should I still hold a grudge towards everyone in Britain, simply because back during the revolutionary war the King was a prick?
I'm all for equality, and I try to only judge people on their own merits, but some people need to understand that this is a two way street. Calling for equality while at the same time calling another group of people priveledged, racist, and rich is a bit contradictory, no?
Also, as far as it being better living in a country where people do these kind of things are maginalized, I agree. But do you think putting his face on every news network and repeating the phrase over and over again is truly marginalizing it?
No, it's not impossible for a white person to say something that might toe the line, but still have it be clear that the person has no ill intent. However, with white people, there isn't the strong presumption that they aren't being racist in any way. It has to be clear through other conversiational and social clues: for example, my friends have demonstrated to me over long periods of time that they're supportive and accepting.
That's kind of what I was trying to say, though. No, there isn't the strong presumtion that they aren't being racist. If anything it's automatically assumed that they are.
Just because some black people have called you derogatory names doesn't mean you don't benefit from white privilege.
Just because I'm white doesn't automatically mean that I do. And I'm talking about friends of mine, not random guys on the street saying 'look at that honky'. We're friends and everything, but they automatically assume that I've had it easier than them because of the color of my skin. Well, they don't anymore, now that they know who I am, but at first it was quite a hurdle to jump.
Just because some black people have called you derogatory names doesn't mean you don't benefit from white privilege.
Just because I'm white doesn't automatically mean that I do.
Privilege doesn't consist only of having "riches."
Let me dig you up some articles so we can talk about this more fully.
OK, so I'm more likely to get a job or something? My employer is a black man, though he is the father of one of my friends so that's that priveledge? That I have more power, because I'm white? No, I have no say in anything, in our country, power is relegated mostly to money, not to skin color. That people treat me better because I'm white? Not where I live. That white people control the media? Have you watched TV lately? I'm not sure, I haven't studied up on whatever idea is represented by 'white priveledge', but I can assure you I've never gotten anything handed to me because of the color of my skin.
Isn't saying that all white people automatically benefit from some 'white priveledge' is not only racist, but a bit paranoid?
Just because some black people have called you derogatory names doesn't mean you don't benefit from white privilege.
Just because I'm white doesn't automatically mean that I do.
Privilege doesn't consist only of having "riches."
Let me dig you up some articles so we can talk about this more fully.
OK, so I'm more likely to get a job or something? My employer is a black man, though he is the father of one of my friends so that's that priveledge? That I have more power, because I'm white? No, I have no say in anything, in our country, power is relegated mostly to money, not to skin color. That people treat me better because I'm white? Not where I live. That white people control the media? Have you watched TV lately? I'm not sure, I haven't studied up on whatever idea is represented by 'white priveledge', but I can assure you I've never gotten anything handed to me because of the color of my skin.
Isn't saying that all white people automatically benefit from some 'white priveledge' is not only racist, but a bit paranoid?
Go back to page 23 or so in this thread where celery spells all this out. Wasn't it you he was talking to?
Isn't saying that all white people automatically benefit from some 'white priveledge' is not only racist, but a bit paranoid?
Only if you don't understand what they mean.
So, this must be a blanket term that applies to all white people, then? Please elaborate, I was unaware that there existed such absolutes. Do all black people really love watermelon, without fail, then? What is the difference between these two statements?
Posts
I did, I read it a few times. You can insult me all you want, but you said, in turn, that when a black rapper says it, it's an insult, but not a racial one. Then you said that the insult has racial connotations built into it. Shit, regardless of whose right or whose wrong, I'll just take with me the fact that I was able to at least respect other people's views, behave like an adult, and hold an intelligent converstation. That is something a good deal of people on this thread cannot do. Welcome to the internet, I guess.
He still had the ratings. It was more a factor of the value of a political attack spreading to GM and Proctor & Gamble vs. the value of them advertising somewhere else. Sure, the major weapon was a market force, and I respect that, but the impetus was political.
You might also argue that if the government threatened to fine GM and P&G because of what Imus said, and therefore they pulled out, then it was still capitalism and not government censorship.
If there were some compelling argument for racism, then we might well see more widespread acceptance of racism. Barring that, I'm fine with a widespread rejection of such statements.
Yep, I'm a huge racist, you caught me. Seriously, do you only read every other word, or something? I'm all for equality, I just don't think that fighting over words is a good step towards that. Now, fighting for equal pay, or equal opportunity, that's a good idea. Getting everyone in a huff over three little words isn't helping anything, regardless of how mean-spirited or racist the words are. Fighting for true equality is one thing, fighting to get some old white guy fired because he said something stupid is another. While I think he should be fired, I don't think it really should have any bearing on our racial climate, and the fact that people are giving these three words so much power is doing more harm than good.
He didn't call you racist, man. I don't think anyone in this thread has. Stop this.
The members of his audience are not uniquely qualified to decide whether his remarks are offensive, nor are their opinions automatically worth more in the national conversation about Imus. They might be worth more to advertisers, though in this case the behavior of the advertisers doesn't seem to reflect that.
What I'm espousing is the mentality that Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and anyone else who chooses to do so is entirely within their right to call for Imus to be fired. The people who changed the channel here were the networks who carried Imus and the advertisers who are their source of income.
Sorry, I may have construed his comment as referring to what I was saying in an earlier post. Ugh, this thread has gotten me on edge a bit, sorry about that.
I guess you haven't been following this thread very much. "Context doesn't matter" was the crux of the argument against Nickle for some time.
My only problem with this idea is that, for example, when a white supremacist group decides to hold a gathering or a march to proclaim their views to the TV cameras or whoever will listen, we are by law forced to allow them to do so. Police and SWAT teams are dispatched to enforce peace and make sure that no one is allowed to "reject" the white supremacists in their faces. If we were able to simply reject certain ideas as a part of the free exchange of them, and free speech in general, then there would be an acceptance that certain universally hateful things like this aren't allowed.
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
Except that Imus hasn't been silenced. He got fired. From a private company. No one is forcing any private entity to facilitate that white supremacist march.
Oh please, you are purposely playing at being dumb. That is why people are gettting snippy with you. Don't pretend to be all innocent.
Again:
When a black rapper says it (even though the insult is partly racial based) the racial part is lessened because he is black and he is addressing the insult towards black athletes. You can assume that he isn't insulting their race.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Though, saying skin color isn't part of context is still pretty stupid. Everything is part of context.
Did you actually read what I said? I've bolded the first sentence for you. Thanks for calling my ideas stupid though, that's very mature of you. Do you not understand what context is? Imus may not have meant those words to be malicious, maybe he said them in the context of a joke (I DON'T KNOW), but how is it fair to automatically assume that, because he's white, he meant those words in the most hurtful way possible? Here's the crux of my other argument, and I'm going to make this realllllllllllllly simple:
The movement for equality would be better served by attacked the underlying cause of the problem, rather than attacking the words that some old white guy uses. Words are just that, words, and the only power that words can have is the power that is given to them. Now, attacking an old white talk show host who says some racist shit will get you the headlines, but is it really doing anything to help?
It doesn't matter what I say though, so I guess I'll just leave the thread. Sorry, I guess I pissed people off enough to start slinging mud at me. Maybe if you read what I typed, though...bah...nevermind. I'm wrong and you're right.
I see... o_O
Yes, skin color is a part of context. That's why we have racism.
EDIT: To clarify, saying that a white person can't say something because they're white, regardless of any other circumstances, is pretty racist. I'm not saying I should be able to say the n-word, I don't think anyone should. But at it's bare bones, it's still discrimination based on the color of someone's skin.
Goddamn, get over yourself.
In any case, I don't see how the movement for equality would be better served by "oh, conservative white guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."
Obviously you don't.
The nappy-headed hoes and the people offended by that statement are not Imus' audience. They aren't his customers. They launched an attack on a market they aren't a part of.
That is not the same as deciding not to watch him anymore. Or deciding not to go to anymore Dixie Chick concerts.
As opposed to "oh, rapper black guy listened to by millions used racial epithets? Well, let's just let it slide. I'm sure that won't give anyone the idea that it's okay, or anything."? I've never heard a reasonable answer to the question why color of skin can be an acceptable basis for dictating behavior.
The movement that led to the firing of Imus all took place outside the government, and thus was an act of the people who are the primary constituency of a democracy. Everyone who took action that eventually led to the firing of Imus did so without government coersion. This is only a violation of the individual's right to free speech if you assume that right includes the freedom to speak free of social judgment, which it does not. We are all free to judge Imus and act on those judgments.
If it's discrimination, then it's the sort that I've only ever found self-entitled brats to care about.
Frame the issue slightly differently: if a gamer was ragging on gamers, would you take it differently than if a jock was ragging on gamers? What if that jock had a history of beating up on gamers?
That's pretty much what I thought when I heard about what Imus said.
With this as the case, I find it hard to lend much credence to arguments that conclude Imus's Fall and the media reaction being due to the fact that:
1) He was on national radio / TV when he made his comments;
2) He was targeting a group of innocent women; or
3) It was unclear that he was acting as a comedian (people who believe he was running a sports/political show).
None of these elements were present in the Richards debacle and he was treated basically the same way as Imus. I have never listened to Imus and think he got exactly what he deserved (he exercised his free speech, others exercised theirs, and he lost), but let's look at the reasons he was fired. It has nothing to do with the 3 facts listed above that others have alluded to. He made some incredibly insensitive / offensive statements that, given that they come from a white man, are just not tolerated by society REGARDLESS of the context. I also have no problem with this.
Every culture / society has standards and those norms are not applied equally to every ethnic group. That is the reality. People who are complaining about double standards and reverse racism, etc. need to shut up and understand that because of the history of this nation, they (as a white male, etc.) have certain restrictions based on their ability to express themselves (if they want to keep there job, not get beat to a pulp, etc.). It's a small price to pay to enjoy the priveleges a caucasian GENERALLY enjoys over his minority brethern.
But that is not analogous. Are you saying that skin color is equal to who you are as a person?
First, and correct me if I'm wrong (I most often am), I don't think the phrase 'nappy headed hos' was coined by white people as a derrogatory term, and in fact, I've never heard a white person use it before, racist or not. I'm arguing that his comment wasn't racist because of the context of the comment. He used a colloquial phrase in response to his co-host saying the Rutgers team looked burly and mean. He chuckled while he said this, in jest (not a chuckle as in "that'll teach those blacks!"). Now I won't argue that he should've chosen his words more wisely, and it was insulting to the team, but no more insulting then calling them burly and mean. It just seems to me that people are putting more of an emphasis on the color of his skin than the context of the phrase.
I've said before though, I don't know what he was thinking, so I can't say for certain. But the people who saw a news ticker that said "Imus says 'nappy headed hoes' on the air" and were outraged, acted unfairly. Do you not think it is wrong to take this phrase, and say 'black people can say this, either as a joke or as an insult, but if a white person says it, it can ONLY be derrogatory, there is NO WAY he could just be joking'?
All I'm trying to say is that intent should far outweigh semantics. I can't really speak for his intent, and in reality no one can but the man himself. But what I inferred from what I've heard is that he didn't mean it in a 'lol all black people suck' way. I can understand if other people think he meant it maliciously, but judging it based soley on three words taken out of context is pretty rash. I can understand that people were offended by the comment, the team most of all, but I don't think that when he said it he meant to imply that ALL black people are 'nappy headed hoes'. Labeling it as an extremely racist phrase, soley because the person saying it is white, regardless of context, is a bit mis-guided.
Again, to reiterate, I am not saying Imus shouldn't have been fired, and I'm not supporting his right to say whatever he wants. It was a mistake to use the words that he chose to use, but not an OMFG CALL CNN AND PUT THIS ON THE NEWS EVERYWHERE kind of mistake. I liken it to a broadcaster saying 'fuck' on the air accidentally, which will generally get you fired as well. Imus may have meant the words to be malicious and derrogatory, but is it wrong to automatically assume this was the case, because he's a white man using black vernacular?
If you want to fight racism, go after the employer who won't hire black people. Go after the cop that pulls over any black man in a nice car. Go after the politicians that pass laws to benefit their rich white friends. Words are just words, and they really have no tangible impact, they can be ignored, or the like in this case, the person saying the words can have their soap box pulled from under them. Going after an aging talk show host who accidentally used a phrase that's considered 'taboo' for white people to say may get you the headlines, but it isn't going to accomplish anything to better our society. Everyone here loves to point out strawman arguments, but they can't recognize this one?
No, I'm saying that being a member of any group, be it ethinic, social, or religious, creates a certain conversational presumption. If I say to another gay man "we're all just a bunch of little girls at heart, aren't we?" then he will most likely assume that I mean it in either a joking manner or am merely poking lighthearted fun. If a straight man says to me that "you're all just a bunch of little girls at heart, aren't you?" then I'll definitely be more guarded, because there's no inherent presumption that he's not attacking gays. If it's a good friend of mine, then regardless of his orientation, the presumption will be in favor of innocent fun, and I will most likely assume that he meant it in a silly way. If it's a stranger, however, then I'll have to try to assertain through conversational and social clues what he really meant by the comment (and likely be quite uncomfortable in the process). If it's a stranger who also happens to be an evangelical Christian with a history of gay-bashing, then I will most definitely take offense, as his meaning will be as clear as meaning ever is. Imus falls into the last case. Did you see the list of racist tripe Elkamil posted, all credited to his show? The Williams sisters belong in the National Geographic?
It's also worth noting that there are some comments that no amount of context will be able to excuse. There's simply no way of reading the comment that the Williams sisters belong in the National Geographic such that it's not racist, and were one of my friends to say it I would feel obliged to confront them over it, despite all the normal presumptions I have about my friends being well-meaning people.
No, it's not impossible for a white person to say something that might toe the line, but still have it be clear that the person has no ill intent. However, with white people, there isn't the strong presumption that they aren't being racist in any way. It has to be clear through other conversiational and social clues: for example, my friends have demonstrated to me over long periods of time that they're supportive and accepting.
Imus has demonstrated the opposite.
Hell, the same applies to black people talking about people of Asian descent: there's no longer a presumption of innocence. It's all about groups talking about each other versus talking about themselves.
Furthermore, no one is saying that black people are infallible beacons of virtue. I was actually pretty offended by some of the stuff Cosby has said about black youth culture and language--I thought it was offensive, and demonstrated a cultural bias and lack of understanding. It's just that generally we interpret the comments of Cosby to be not-racist-against blacks, seeing as he himself is black, and the idea that he's racist against his own race is generally a mind-boggler.
Imus is a racist fuck who spread hate. I think taking him off the air accomplishes something.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand the full extent of racial priviledge. Living in a country where famous guys on the air are constantly dropping one-liners about how you, and your race, are apes and maids, affects you. Living in a country where no one does that, (or if they do, they're completely marginalized), is empowering. Racial priviledge does not consist solely in explicit patronage from the powers that be.
I'm all for equality, and I try to only judge people on their own merits, but some people need to understand that this is a two way street. Calling for equality while at the same time calling another group of people priveledged, racist, and rich is a bit contradictory, no?
Also, as far as it being better living in a country where people do these kind of things are maginalized, I agree. But do you think putting his face on every news network and repeating the phrase over and over again is truly marginalizing it?
That's kind of what I was trying to say, though. No, there isn't the strong presumtion that they aren't being racist. If anything it's automatically assumed that they are.
Just because I'm white doesn't automatically mean that I do. And I'm talking about friends of mine, not random guys on the street saying 'look at that honky'. We're friends and everything, but they automatically assume that I've had it easier than them because of the color of my skin. Well, they don't anymore, now that they know who I am, but at first it was quite a hurdle to jump.
Privilege doesn't consist only of having "riches."
Let me dig you up some articles so we can talk about this more fully.
OK, so I'm more likely to get a job or something? My employer is a black man, though he is the father of one of my friends so that's that priveledge? That I have more power, because I'm white? No, I have no say in anything, in our country, power is relegated mostly to money, not to skin color. That people treat me better because I'm white? Not where I live. That white people control the media? Have you watched TV lately? I'm not sure, I haven't studied up on whatever idea is represented by 'white priveledge', but I can assure you I've never gotten anything handed to me because of the color of my skin.
Isn't saying that all white people automatically benefit from some 'white priveledge' is not only racist, but a bit paranoid?
Only if you don't understand what they mean.
Go back to page 23 or so in this thread where celery spells all this out. Wasn't it you he was talking to?
So, this must be a blanket term that applies to all white people, then? Please elaborate, I was unaware that there existed such absolutes. Do all black people really love watermelon, without fail, then? What is the difference between these two statements?
You're misunderstanding what 'white privilege' means.