And I think that the 1st Amendment shouldn't come with a disclaimer that it applies differently depending on the color of your skin.
Irrelevent because it's not the governments doing. MSNBC and CBS can show who they want and who they don't want, advertisers can pay for what spots they want and what spots they don't want, and people can bitch about and boycott what companies/radio hosts they want.
Well I think that Chappelle in whiteface is the exact same fucking thing as some white guy in blackface (playing devil's advocate). Try and tell me I'm wrong without arguing that it's ok for black people to be racist.
Arg. Context my man, context.
Chappelle was parodying old blackface skits by reversing the idea. He wasn't making fun of white people, but rather the old blackface skits. And while he does use racial humor, it's not in a malicious way. He plays off stereotypes, that is the core of much of his humor
A white guy in blackface wouldn't be a parody unless it was carefully done. That is because the connections to the still recent and extremely racist practice of blackface make it very touchy. A guy in blackface doing stereotypically "black" things would be an obvious attack towards blacks. However, if the white guy in blackface was trying and failing miserably to do "black" things then the joke would be on himself and blackface skits, not blacks in general, so that would be ok.
But what if that's not how I took his whiteface skit? What if I was completely ignorant of Dave Chappelle's career as a comedian and just thought it was some black guy on TV making racially charged comments about white people? To me he'd just a racist asshole.
Can't we all just agree that Al Sharton looks ridiculous? I mean, come on, what's with that hair, guy? I'm not going to mess with Jesse Jackson, though, because I hear his eyes can shoot lasers. Imus, though....If you're gonna wear a wig, try to avoid the poofy mullett wig, alright?
Seriously, everyone just take a deep breath, Imus has been fired. Maybe it would be better to focus on the progress we've made so far, as opposed to the progress we've yet to make. Can we at least agree that Imus' comments had no real, tangible impact on race relations (aside from the impact that was manufactured by the media, and his personal situation), and move on? Imus said some stupid shit, he got fired, now we can all move on to worrying about real problems, and not some guy insulting a basketball team. Or Anna Nicole's baby. Or any of that inconsequential crap you see on the news most of the time.
That's debatable. I'd say that presenting racist remarks as legitimate social discourse has a tangible impact on race relations. Also, just because there are other "real issues" going on doesn't mean we should not address this issue.
Change comes with time, and some old white dude saying something (racist or not) should not be a big enough blow to set race-relations reeling. It was blown way out of prorotion, and did nothing to actually serve the cause of moving forward towards equality. This was all a big hub-bub about gettting a geezer fired, now it's over, so we can try tackling real race problems.
While I don't agree that this was blown way out of proportion, I more or less agree with the rest of your sentiment.
Well I think that Chappelle in whiteface is the exact same fucking thing as some white guy in blackface (playing devil's advocate). Try and tell me I'm wrong without arguing that it's ok for black people to be racist.
Arg. Context my man, context.
Chappelle was parodying old blackface skits by reversing the idea. He wasn't making fun of white people, but rather the old blackface skits. And while he does use racial humor, it's not in a malicious way. He plays off stereotypes, that is the core of much of his humor
A white guy in blackface wouldn't be a parody unless it was carefully done. That is because the connections to the still recent and extremely racist practice of blackface make it very touchy. A guy in blackface doing stereotypically "black" things would be an obvious attack towards blacks. However, if the white guy in blackface was trying and failing miserably to do "black" things then the joke would be on himself and blackface skits, not blacks in general, so that would be ok.
I was just about to make this exact post, Proto.
And hell, when Chappelle thought his stuff wasn't going the way he liked, he fucking *STOPPED*. I admire the hell out of that, even if I wish the show had continued.
I think it's telling that the majority of the discussion in this thread is about tangential shit. If it isn't about deflecting the criticism, it's about legitimizing Imus' comments.
That's not restricted to this thread, either. Talk radio and cable news shows are even worse about this stuff (especially the 'why is it okay when they say it' line).
If anything, the deflection underlines the fact that we have a long way to go in repairing race relations in this country.
But what if that's not how I took his whiteface skit? What if I was completely ignorant of Dave Chappelle's career as a comedian and just thought it was some black guy on TV making racially charged comments about white people? To me he'd just a racist asshole.
Then you get to protest against him. Raise a stink. See if you can find others who agree with you. Exercise your own freedom of speech.
Most people understand that there are specific reasons why the culture is the way it is, and why certain things are offensive in context and others are not, in context. But if you can raise a firestorm, you get to do that.
Change comes with time, and some old white dude saying something (racist or not) should not be a big enough blow to set race-relations reeling. It was blown way out of prorotion, and did nothing to actually serve the cause of moving forward towards equality. This was all a big hub-bub about gettting a geezer fired, now it's over, so we can try tackling real race problems.
The way I see it, public repudiation of racist comments is part of "making progress".
The way I see it, racism isn't comprised of words, it's comprised of intent, and actual, tangible discrimination. I guess we just see things differently. If three words uttered by a white guy in jest can cause such a huge reaction amongst a group of people who were only inadvertantly affected by them, maybe we haven't made any progress at all. 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. I'm done with this argument, because it's just going around in circles, and no one seems to be capable of even trying to understand what the other side is saying.
I still think it's great that everyone's getting involved and all, but really, some people are just being a little to close-minded, and applying racism as a blanket term involving certain words is just ridiculous. I will always maintain that words or actions cannot be, by definition, good or evil. Soley the intent of the words or actions can be judged.
Racism is a difference in the socio-economic status, and words should have no power in that regard. I don't think that Imus calling a team of girl basketball players nappy headed hos did anything to set race relations back. The words didn't make anyone say 'Wait, black people ARE just nappy headed hos! I'm gonna go fire Jim!". He got fired by his boss, which is well within their rights, but I think this whole situation was given way too much credibility for it's impact on our current situation, and the reaction to it has been more devastating than helpful. But that's what the media does, right? Sensationalism at it's best.
Sometimes, the more you try to bring a problem into the lime light, the more you try to sensationalize it, the worse it's going to get. Sometimes, you have to work to change the underlying mechanics of the problem, instead of just going after the headline grabbing events.
If anything, the deflection underlines the fact that we have a long way to go in repairing race relations in this country.
If anything, the huge deal that's been made about this is doing more to damage race relations than anything Imus ever said. If anything, it's a huge problem that people still perceive a much larger gap than there is, and are willing to take Imus's comments in the same context as if they'd been made in the early 1900's. There will never be an end to racism if certain people still refuse to notice that we've made progress. If you want to talk about progress, I think if racism didn't exist, a white guy could say the n-word, with no negative connotations, and not offend anyone. The way we're going about it now seems a bit backwards, to me. (though I still maintain, given the word's history, that NO ONE should say it, but I hope you get my point).
Irrelevent because it's not the governments doing. MSNBC and CBS can show who they want and who they don't want, advertisers can pay for what spots they want and what spots they don't want, and people can bitch about and boycott what companies/radio hosts they want.
I knew that'd get some response. All I have to say is that you're completely correct, for now. There have already been talk about banning the use of the n-word by white people. Do you really believe that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson haven't thought about trying to make it illegal for white people to say the n-word? Do you really believe that they wouldn't have a small but extremely vocal support base for such a thing? You're right, Don Imus' firing wasn't a 1st Amendment violation. But you have you head in the sand if you can't see how this could just be the first step towards actual infringement of our civil liberties.
Well I think that Chappelle in whiteface is the exact same fucking thing as some white guy in blackface (playing devil's advocate). Try and tell me I'm wrong without arguing that it's ok for black people to be racist.
Arg. Context my man, context.
Chappelle was parodying old blackface skits by reversing the idea. He wasn't making fun of white people, but rather the old blackface skits. And while he does use racial humor, it's not in a malicious way. He plays off stereotypes, that is the core of much of his humor
A white guy in blackface wouldn't be a parody unless it was carefully done. That is because the connections to the still recent and extremely racist practice of blackface make it very touchy. A guy in blackface doing stereotypically "black" things would be an obvious attack towards blacks. However, if the white guy in blackface was trying and failing miserably to do "black" things then the joke would be on himself and blackface skits, not blacks in general, so that would be ok.
But what if that's not how I took his whiteface skit? What if I was completely ignorant of Dave Chappelle's career as a comedian and just thought it was some black guy on TV making racially charged comments about white people? To me he'd just a racist asshole.
No one says you can't be offended by Chappelle in "whiteface", even if it's due to the fact that your ignorance of Chappelle's past remarks and comedy. But don't try justifying your being offended because of your own ignorance and expect for people to take your opinions seriously.
It's been repeated quite a bit so far, but please hear and understand it this time: THIS ISN'T THE FIRST CASE OF IMUS TALKING LIKE A RACIST ASSHOLE. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt now?
Well I think that Chappelle in whiteface is the exact same fucking thing as some white guy in blackface (playing devil's advocate). Try and tell me I'm wrong without arguing that it's ok for black people to be racist.
Arg. Context my man, context.
Chappelle was parodying old blackface skits by reversing the idea. He wasn't making fun of white people, but rather the old blackface skits. And while he does use racial humor, it's not in a malicious way. He plays off stereotypes, that is the core of much of his humor
A white guy in blackface wouldn't be a parody unless it was carefully done. That is because the connections to the still recent and extremely racist practice of blackface make it very touchy. A guy in blackface doing stereotypically "black" things would be an obvious attack towards blacks. However, if the white guy in blackface was trying and failing miserably to do "black" things then the joke would be on himself and blackface skits, not blacks in general, so that would be ok.
But what if that's not how I took his whiteface skit? What if I was completely ignorant of Dave Chappelle's career as a comedian and just thought it was some black guy on TV making racially charged comments about white people? To me he'd just a racist asshole.
It has nothing to do with you recognizing him as being a comedian or not. All you would need to be aware of is the existience of blackface skits. Since he is not targeting whites, but rather the blackface skits themselves, you couldn't consider him racist unless you are being particularly obtuse.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
But what if that's not how I took his whiteface skit? What if I was completely ignorant of Dave Chappelle's career as a comedian and just thought it was some black guy on TV making racially charged comments about white people? To me he'd just a racist asshole.
Then you get to protest against him. Raise a stink. See if you can find others who agree with you. Exercise your own freedom of speech.
Most people understand that there are specific reasons why the culture is the way it is, and why certain things are offensive in context and others are not, in context. But if you can raise a firestorm, you get to do that.
And even if I did gather enough support to be heard, you'd all be here calling me a racist asshole. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be all over the television defending his right to offend people. The corporate world wouldn't even blink and they certainly wouldn't cave in to any percieved pressure. So who has all the power again?
If anything, the huge deal that's been made about this is doing more to damage race relations than anything Imus ever said. If anything, it's a huge problem that people still perceive a much larger gap than there is, and are willing to take Imus's comments in the same context as if they'd been made in the early 1900's. There will never be an end to racism if certain people still refuse to notice that we've made progress.
This episode may be helpful to race relations, actually. As people understand that comments like these are unacceptable, they are less likely to make racist comments/jokes. While that won't 'cure' them of racism, it means that societal norms no longer tolerate this brand of bullshit.
And there will never be an end to racism as long as strawmen keep popping up on every page.
If anything, the huge deal that's been made about this is doing more to damage race relations than anything Imus ever said. If anything, it's a huge problem that people still perceive a much larger gap than there is, and are willing to take Imus's comments in the same context as if they'd been made in the early 1900's. There will never be an end to racism if certain people still refuse to notice that we've made progress.
This episode may be helpful to race relations, actually. As people understand that comments like these are unacceptable, they are less likely to make racist comments/jokes. While that won't 'cure' them of racism, it means that societal norms no longer tolerate this brand of bullshit.
And there will never be an end to racism as long as strawmen keep popping up on every page.
And as long as their is a double standard, all this will create is animosity.
Well I think that Chappelle in whiteface is the exact same fucking thing as some white guy in blackface (playing devil's advocate). Try and tell me I'm wrong without arguing that it's ok for black people to be racist.
Obama and Clinton wouldn't be presidential front-runners if they were tone-deaf to the way the American public reacts to shit like this. Sharpton and Jackson wouldn't be in the position they're in if they misrepresented the views of the people they purport to represent.
Public companies that rely upon consumer opinion and advertiser support like MSNBC would be stupid not to take the public opinion into account.
I'm not saying they didn't act accordingly. As a few people have pointed out, Imus doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean reputation, and people at MSNBC and CBS, as well as his numerous high-profile sponsors, knew his track record when they signed on the dotted line, and still supported his show because it made them money.
But as soon as it becomes a media sensation, it's time to pull up stakes and bail out. My point was just that because this particular incident flared up so heavily, it was a purely economic decision to dump support of Imus and his show. I think anyone who believes that he was fired "to do the right thing" is doing the thing with the rose-colored specs and all that.
As for Sharpton and Jackson, I think they oft-times DO misrepresent their supposed supporters. They, similar to Imus, have a history of jumping to false conclusions and creating a frenzy over things about which they wind up being completely wrong. You know Jesse Jackson, back when the whole Duke lacrosse rape thing started, offered to pay for a full scholarship for the young lady who was accusing the Duke boys? I wonder if that's still going to hold up, now that they got off....
If anything, the huge deal that's been made about this is doing more to damage race relations than anything Imus ever said. If anything, it's a huge problem that people still perceive a much larger gap than there is, and are willing to take Imus's comments in the same context as if they'd been made in the early 1900's. There will never be an end to racism if certain people still refuse to notice that we've made progress.
This episode may be helpful to race relations, actually. As people understand that comments like these are unacceptable, they are less likely to make racist comments/jokes. While that won't 'cure' them of racism, it means that societal norms no longer tolerate this brand of bullshit.
And there will never be an end to racism as long as strawmen keep popping up on every page.
See, as I see it, when people understand that some old white guy saying nappy headed hos shouldn't offend anyone, that's when we'll be making a good step forward. I'm not saying ignoring the problem will make it go away, but if you feel like white people are holding some kind of power of black people, maybe we shouldn't be giving their words so much weight. Imus is an idiot, and he said something stupid. Saying "all black people should fee outraged" is a huge step backward. Fire him, call him a racist, and forget about him. We're making huge steps everyday, yet people like Al Sharpton apparently feel that nothing has changed.
When something like this gains national attention, we're all taking a huge step back. We're getting offended by words that haven't really carried any power for hundreds of years, and you think that's progress? If anything, giving these words power, making them taboo, or what have you is only putting a strain on race relations. You can ban every person in the world from saying the n-world, but that will never change how some people think. They're just words, and the argument about them is detracting from the real problem. Al Sharpton and the like would rather have the appearance of change than actual change.
When something like this gains national attention, we're all taking a huge step back. We're getting offended by words that haven't really carried any power for hundreds of years, and you think that's progress? If anything, giving these words power, making them taboo, or what have you is only putting a strain on race relations.
When something like this gains national attention, we're all taking a huge step back. We're getting offended by words that haven't really carried any power for hundreds of years, and you think that's progress? If anything, giving these words power, making them taboo, or what have you is only putting a strain on race relations.
Hear that, black people? Get over yourselves.
Congratulations, you completely glossed over my point to make a snarky comment. Here's your internet medal.
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.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
And even if I did gather enough support to be heard, you'd all be here calling me a racist asshole. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be all over the television defending his right to offend people. The corporate world wouldn't even blink and they certainly wouldn't cave in to any percieved pressure. So who has all the power again?
We all do, and the firestorm you're talking about is part of the dialogue that happens in culture. The reason you wouldn't last long in such a national debate is because the larger culture has, collectively, already decided that your position is wrong; a comedian in blackface/whiteface is not intrinsically offensive, but it can be so due to the context in which it's used, and how that relates to the national/cultural context in which all our discourse takes place.
Awesome. A man calling black women "nappy headed hoes" doesn't set back race-relations, but campaigning to get that racist fucktard out of his highly visible job does. Get the fuck out of here, please.
I knew that'd get some response. All I have to say is that you're completely correct, for now. There have already been talk about banning the use of the n-word by white people. Do you really believe that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson haven't thought about trying to make it illegal for white people to say the n-word? Do you really believe that they wouldn't have a small but extremely vocal support base for such a thing? You're right, Don Imus' firing wasn't a 1st Amendment violation. But you have you head in the sand if you can't see how this could just be the first step towards actual infringement of our civil liberties.
What the fuck. Are you really going to argue your point on the basis of a slippery slope situation? And a blatantly retarded one at that? Sharpton and Jackson, I presume, aren't stupid enough to think that there can actually be laws that would do what you're suggesting. This is why they use political and economic pressure to get things done. There isn't going to be a law against saying the N word, you retard. This isn't a first step towards infringing on the first amendment.
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.
Awesome. A man calling black women "nappy headed hoes" doesn't set back race-relations, but campaigning to get that racist fucktard out of his highly visible job does. Get the fuck out of here, please.
Seriously, I haven't insulted anyone here, but you need to work on your reading comprehension. If you take 2 or 3 words out of every sentence i write to make new sentences that serve your argument, no one will ever get anywhere. You missed the point of what I was trying to say ENTIRELY.
If anything, the huge deal that's been made about this is doing more to damage race relations than anything Imus ever said. If anything, it's a huge problem that people still perceive a much larger gap than there is, and are willing to take Imus's comments in the same context as if they'd been made in the early 1900's. There will never be an end to racism if certain people still refuse to notice that we've made progress.
This episode may be helpful to race relations, actually. As people understand that comments like these are unacceptable, they are less likely to make racist comments/jokes. While that won't 'cure' them of racism, it means that societal norms no longer tolerate this brand of bullshit.
And there will never be an end to racism as long as strawmen keep popping up on every page.
See, as I see it, when people understand that some old white guy saying nappy headed hos shouldn't offend anyone, that's when we'll be making a good step forward. I'm not saying ignoring the problem will make it go away, but if you feel like white people are holding some kind of power of black people, maybe we shouldn't be giving their words so much weight. Imus is an idiot, and he said something stupid. Saying "all black people should fee outraged" is a huge step backward. Fire him, call him a racist, and forget about him. We're making huge steps everyday, yet people like Al Sharpton apparently feel that nothing has changed.
When something like this gains national attention, we're all taking a huge step back. We're getting offended by words that haven't really carried any power for hundreds of years, and you think that's progress? If anything, giving these words power, making them taboo, or what have you is only putting a strain on race relations. You can ban every person in the world from saying the n-world, but that will never change how some people think. They're just words, and the argument about them is detracting from the real problem. Al Sharpton and the like would rather have the appearance of change than actual change.
I think that by showing that these kind of statements are unacceptable in our society we are sending a much clearer message then we would if we let this stuff pass without comment.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
When something like this gains national attention, we're all taking a huge step back. We're getting offended by words that haven't really carried any power for hundreds of years, and you think that's progress? If anything, giving these words power, making them taboo, or what have you is only putting a strain on race relations.
Hear that, black people? Get over yourselves.
Congratulations, you completely glossed over my point to make a snarky comment. Here's your internet medal.
And as part of my acceptance speech, I'd like to thank those asinine statements that made such snark possible. Couldn't have done it without you guys!
Seriously, you're arguing for ignoring racist comments as a path to reconciliation. That ridiculous because 1) it implicitly suggests that such comments are okay and 2) the words do have power. You don't get to decide for the Rutgers team how they should feel.
When people say offensive things in a public forum, they get a negative response. That's how discourse works.
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 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..
Exactly. I mean, really, why should context matter? Why doesn't the random guy who I walk up to on the street, punch in the face, then yell "shithead!" at react the same way as my best friend does when I call him a shithead? Why should context matter?
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.
The free exchange of ideas does not mean that all ideas are equal. A compelling argument for holocaust denial, for example, may radically change the discourse on that subject. Since one hasn't come along yet, holocaust denial is treated like the vile concept that it is.
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.
If this were a bunch of Krazy Kristians doing this because of a boob, you'd be all "it's the free market, if the companies don't like it, that's their problem, it's not censorship" etc.
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.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I think that by showing that these kind of statements are unacceptable in our society we are sending a much clearer message then we would if we let this stuff pass without comment.
Hey! An intelligent argument that doesn't skew what I say or call me stupid! Go figure. I'm not saying let it pass without comment, he should be fired, that's that. What I'm saying is that making a huge deal out of it doesn't serve anyone except the folks like Jackson and Sharpton. The day when people can accept the school yard "Sticks and Stones" rhyme, is the day we can all move on and be equal. Imus said some stupid shit, and everyone agrees he looked like an idiot. I see that as a huge sign of progress. When you start saying his words are enough to upset the current state of race relations, you're demeaning all of the sacrafices that have been made in the cause of equality.
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....
If this were a bunch of Krazy Kristians doing this because of a boob, you'd be all "it's the free market, if the companies don't like it, that's their problem, it's not censorship" etc.
"If it were ____ you'd be all ____" is a piece of shit argument, one that I could make in almost every thread, but generally refrain from.
Also, after all this time you seem to clearly miss where I stand on issues and instead just strawman me as a conservative.
Incidentally, the government fined the network for Janet's boob. That is censorship.
A better example might be the Dixie Chicks. In that case, it was their very audience that got pissed off and quit supporting them. That's not censorship at all.
But when society at large, led by a couple of power-mad politicians, move to silence speech that was not directed at them and was generally accepted by the speaker, the audience, the medium, and the sponsor, then the fact that it isn't the feds but another politcal machinery altogether doesn't make that much of a difference.
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.
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.
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.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Yeah, Yar, when we as society decide to respect the concept of a "free exchange of ideas," - however broad and nebulous a concept that may be - we're not really saying that the exchange of ideas ought to be free of social consequences. If a forumer here goes around making racist statements and treating people disrespecfully he's going to get banned eventually; a plurality of this community agrees that those remarks are disruptive, and in very poor taste. The mod staff, in recognition of that, has the authority to decide that the PA forum shall not be used as a vehicle for such behavior. Well, Imus just got banned.
Imus can call as many people nappy headed ho's as he wants. He can say this to his neighbors, and he can say this to people he meets on the street, and he can say it on internet forums and on his radio show. But if he uses someone else's radio network or internet forum to do that, then the network or forum admins might decide that's not how they want their facilities used.
We can respect a free exchange of ideas and still come to a consensus about people who espouse certain ideas - and, yes, use certain language - being morons who don't deserve the privelege of a microphone. All of that is part of our free exchange.
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.
"Rejecting" as in exacting punishment upon those who speak them.
Yeah, Yar, when we as society decide to respect the concept of a "free exchange of ideas," - however broad and nebulous a concept that may be - we're not really saying that the exchange of ideas ought to be free of social consequences. If a forumer here goes around making racist statements and treating people disrespecfully he's going to get banned eventually; a plurality of this community agrees that those remarks are disruptive, and in very poor taste. The mod staff, in recognition of that, has the authority to decide that the PA forum shall not be used as a vehicle for such behavior. Well, Imus just got banned.
The fucking HUGE difference being that there was no plurality or majority of Imus' audience who wanted him fired. It was entirely external.
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!"
Yar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
"Rejecting" as in exacting punishment upon those who speak them.
The particular context of Imus' punishment is a byproduct of his role in a capitalist entertainment medium.
Posts
Irrelevent because it's not the governments doing. MSNBC and CBS can show who they want and who they don't want, advertisers can pay for what spots they want and what spots they don't want, and people can bitch about and boycott what companies/radio hosts they want.
EDIT: Lttp.
But what if that's not how I took his whiteface skit? What if I was completely ignorant of Dave Chappelle's career as a comedian and just thought it was some black guy on TV making racially charged comments about white people? To me he'd just a racist asshole.
That's debatable. I'd say that presenting racist remarks as legitimate social discourse has a tangible impact on race relations. Also, just because there are other "real issues" going on doesn't mean we should not address this issue.
While I don't agree that this was blown way out of proportion, I more or less agree with the rest of your sentiment.
And hell, when Chappelle thought his stuff wasn't going the way he liked, he fucking *STOPPED*. I admire the hell out of that, even if I wish the show had continued.
That's not restricted to this thread, either. Talk radio and cable news shows are even worse about this stuff (especially the 'why is it okay when they say it' line).
If anything, the deflection underlines the fact that we have a long way to go in repairing race relations in this country.
Most people understand that there are specific reasons why the culture is the way it is, and why certain things are offensive in context and others are not, in context. But if you can raise a firestorm, you get to do that.
The way I see it, racism isn't comprised of words, it's comprised of intent, and actual, tangible discrimination. I guess we just see things differently. If three words uttered by a white guy in jest can cause such a huge reaction amongst a group of people who were only inadvertantly affected by them, maybe we haven't made any progress at all. 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. I'm done with this argument, because it's just going around in circles, and no one seems to be capable of even trying to understand what the other side is saying.
I still think it's great that everyone's getting involved and all, but really, some people are just being a little to close-minded, and applying racism as a blanket term involving certain words is just ridiculous. I will always maintain that words or actions cannot be, by definition, good or evil. Soley the intent of the words or actions can be judged.
Racism is a difference in the socio-economic status, and words should have no power in that regard. I don't think that Imus calling a team of girl basketball players nappy headed hos did anything to set race relations back. The words didn't make anyone say 'Wait, black people ARE just nappy headed hos! I'm gonna go fire Jim!". He got fired by his boss, which is well within their rights, but I think this whole situation was given way too much credibility for it's impact on our current situation, and the reaction to it has been more devastating than helpful. But that's what the media does, right? Sensationalism at it's best.
Sometimes, the more you try to bring a problem into the lime light, the more you try to sensationalize it, the worse it's going to get. Sometimes, you have to work to change the underlying mechanics of the problem, instead of just going after the headline grabbing events.
If anything, the huge deal that's been made about this is doing more to damage race relations than anything Imus ever said. If anything, it's a huge problem that people still perceive a much larger gap than there is, and are willing to take Imus's comments in the same context as if they'd been made in the early 1900's. There will never be an end to racism if certain people still refuse to notice that we've made progress. If you want to talk about progress, I think if racism didn't exist, a white guy could say the n-word, with no negative connotations, and not offend anyone. The way we're going about it now seems a bit backwards, to me. (though I still maintain, given the word's history, that NO ONE should say it, but I hope you get my point).
I knew that'd get some response. All I have to say is that you're completely correct, for now. There have already been talk about banning the use of the n-word by white people. Do you really believe that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson haven't thought about trying to make it illegal for white people to say the n-word? Do you really believe that they wouldn't have a small but extremely vocal support base for such a thing? You're right, Don Imus' firing wasn't a 1st Amendment violation. But you have you head in the sand if you can't see how this could just be the first step towards actual infringement of our civil liberties.
No one says you can't be offended by Chappelle in "whiteface", even if it's due to the fact that your ignorance of Chappelle's past remarks and comedy. But don't try justifying your being offended because of your own ignorance and expect for people to take your opinions seriously.
It's been repeated quite a bit so far, but please hear and understand it this time: THIS ISN'T THE FIRST CASE OF IMUS TALKING LIKE A RACIST ASSHOLE. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt now?
It has nothing to do with you recognizing him as being a comedian or not. All you would need to be aware of is the existience of blackface skits. Since he is not targeting whites, but rather the blackface skits themselves, you couldn't consider him racist unless you are being particularly obtuse.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
And even if I did gather enough support to be heard, you'd all be here calling me a racist asshole. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be all over the television defending his right to offend people. The corporate world wouldn't even blink and they certainly wouldn't cave in to any percieved pressure. So who has all the power again?
This episode may be helpful to race relations, actually. As people understand that comments like these are unacceptable, they are less likely to make racist comments/jokes. While that won't 'cure' them of racism, it means that societal norms no longer tolerate this brand of bullshit.
And there will never be an end to racism as long as strawmen keep popping up on every page.
I've been saying that all day long.
And as long as their is a double standard, all this will create is animosity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteface
I'm not saying they didn't act accordingly. As a few people have pointed out, Imus doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean reputation, and people at MSNBC and CBS, as well as his numerous high-profile sponsors, knew his track record when they signed on the dotted line, and still supported his show because it made them money.
But as soon as it becomes a media sensation, it's time to pull up stakes and bail out. My point was just that because this particular incident flared up so heavily, it was a purely economic decision to dump support of Imus and his show. I think anyone who believes that he was fired "to do the right thing" is doing the thing with the rose-colored specs and all that.
As for Sharpton and Jackson, I think they oft-times DO misrepresent their supposed supporters. They, similar to Imus, have a history of jumping to false conclusions and creating a frenzy over things about which they wind up being completely wrong. You know Jesse Jackson, back when the whole Duke lacrosse rape thing started, offered to pay for a full scholarship for the young lady who was accusing the Duke boys? I wonder if that's still going to hold up, now that they got off....
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
See, as I see it, when people understand that some old white guy saying nappy headed hos shouldn't offend anyone, that's when we'll be making a good step forward. I'm not saying ignoring the problem will make it go away, but if you feel like white people are holding some kind of power of black people, maybe we shouldn't be giving their words so much weight. Imus is an idiot, and he said something stupid. Saying "all black people should fee outraged" is a huge step backward. Fire him, call him a racist, and forget about him. We're making huge steps everyday, yet people like Al Sharpton apparently feel that nothing has changed.
When something like this gains national attention, we're all taking a huge step back. We're getting offended by words that haven't really carried any power for hundreds of years, and you think that's progress? If anything, giving these words power, making them taboo, or what have you is only putting a strain on race relations. You can ban every person in the world from saying the n-world, but that will never change how some people think. They're just words, and the argument about them is detracting from the real problem. Al Sharpton and the like would rather have the appearance of change than actual change.
Hear that, black people? Get over yourselves.
Congratulations, you completely glossed over my point to make a snarky comment. Here's your internet medal.
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.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
What the fuck. Are you really going to argue your point on the basis of a slippery slope situation? And a blatantly retarded one at that? Sharpton and Jackson, I presume, aren't stupid enough to think that there can actually be laws that would do what you're suggesting. This is why they use political and economic pressure to get things done. There isn't going to be a law against saying the N word, you retard. This isn't a first step towards infringing on the first amendment.
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.
Seriously, I haven't insulted anyone here, but you need to work on your reading comprehension. If you take 2 or 3 words out of every sentence i write to make new sentences that serve your argument, no one will ever get anywhere. You missed the point of what I was trying to say ENTIRELY.
I think that by showing that these kind of statements are unacceptable in our society we are sending a much clearer message then we would if we let this stuff pass without comment.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
And as part of my acceptance speech, I'd like to thank those asinine statements that made such snark possible. Couldn't have done it without you guys!
Seriously, you're arguing for ignoring racist comments as a path to reconciliation. That ridiculous because 1) it implicitly suggests that such comments are okay and 2) the words do have power. You don't get to decide for the Rutgers team how they should feel.
When people say offensive things in a public forum, they get a negative response. That's how discourse works.
The free exchange of ideas does not mean that all ideas are equal. A compelling argument for holocaust denial, for example, may radically change the discourse on that subject. Since one hasn't come along yet, holocaust denial is treated like the vile concept that it is.
Dude. The insult has racial connotations built into it. It's not just a generic insult.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Hey! An intelligent argument that doesn't skew what I say or call me stupid! Go figure. I'm not saying let it pass without comment, he should be fired, that's that. What I'm saying is that making a huge deal out of it doesn't serve anyone except the folks like Jackson and Sharpton. The day when people can accept the school yard "Sticks and Stones" rhyme, is the day we can all move on and be equal. Imus said some stupid shit, and everyone agrees he looked like an idiot. I see that as a huge sign of progress. When you start saying his words are enough to upset the current state of race relations, you're demeaning all of the sacrafices that have been made in the cause of equality.
But....but...you just said the insult doesn't have racial connotations when a black person says it....
Also, after all this time you seem to clearly miss where I stand on issues and instead just strawman me as a conservative.
Incidentally, the government fined the network for Janet's boob. That is censorship.
A better example might be the Dixie Chicks. In that case, it was their very audience that got pissed off and quit supporting them. That's not censorship at all.
But when society at large, led by a couple of power-mad politicians, move to silence speech that was not directed at them and was generally accepted by the speaker, the audience, the medium, and the sponsor, then the fact that it isn't the feds but another politcal machinery altogether doesn't make that much of a difference.
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.
Very good junior. Now read that post again. Slowly.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Imus can call as many people nappy headed ho's as he wants. He can say this to his neighbors, and he can say this to people he meets on the street, and he can say it on internet forums and on his radio show. But if he uses someone else's radio network or internet forum to do that, then the network or forum admins might decide that's not how they want their facilities used.
We can respect a free exchange of ideas and still come to a consensus about people who espouse certain ideas - and, yes, use certain language - being morons who don't deserve the privelege of a microphone. All of that is part of our free exchange.
The fucking HUGE difference being that there was no plurality or majority of Imus' audience who wanted him fired. It was entirely external.
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!"