You agree it’s only bad to say most South Africans are “living in the bush” because it’s not PC? O-kaaay.
Now, now, jsgoddess, Shodan never said that. He was just cool with me waiting another ten unnecessary years to get that right.
No I said that even if he is racist, that doesn’t make what he said in the tweets racist. Then I went on to concede the point because it doesn’t really matter IMO. I feel like nobody should be afraid to lose their job, or be questioned by the police, or wear a scarlet ‘A’ because of their opinion. That’s the first step towards thought-crime and other totalitarian utilities that condemns someone for having a difference of opinion.
Your bus boycott analogy is exactly what I’m advocating for. If Anthony’s opinions were truly unfit for this society, the market would’ve spoken and their numbers would have tanked overnight. That didn’t happen and wouldn’t have happened from what I can tell.
I disagree. I don’t think an employer should have the same 1st amendment rights as a human being. They shouldn’t be able to fire someone for a difference of opinion, there should be a business reason. And before you start with the “being associated with racism” crap, again, if the listeners hated his tweets so much, the numbers would have dropped.
I also don’t think a business should be allowed to discriminate based on race or gender.
There’s a difference between being racist and performing racist acts. Anthony isn’t stopping black people from doing anything, unlike racist whites from the 50s or people that are against gay marriage. The second you use your 1st amendment rights to deprive others of their 1st amendment rights is where the line is at IMO. Anthony did none of that, all he did was post mean words on the internet.
That’s my two cents…maybe I’m wrong or just twisting myself into a pretzel to defend an idiot who doesn’t know where the line is. But I will never concede freedom of speech or the ability to hold an unpopular opinion, not even an inch.
No, what makes his tweets racist is the fact that they are. Unequivocally. 100%. Out and proud. Absolutely unarguably racist.
And I’m fine with that, but if you say that he was fired for insulting a black woman, you are misinformed. He was fired for the subsequent racist tweets. Which were racist.
Listener numbers don’t drive the radio business, advertising revenue does. If advertisers pulled their sponsorship from the Opie and Anthony Show - as they often do in situations like this - that’s a pretty solid business reason to get rid of the guy.
His 1st Amendment rights are still pristine. He is perfectly free to hold unpopular opinions, to believe racist things, and to promote those racist beliefs in a very public forum. We know he is free to do these things because he *did *do them – nobody stopped him, he isn’t going to be charged with a crime or sued, he won’t be barred from running for elected office, etc.
At the same time, for my 1st Amendment rights to be in force, I must be free to call him a racist asshole. Sirius XM has 1st Amendment rights, too: they chose to exercise their freedom of association when they severed ties with Cumia. Really, everything is working as it should be.
Not concerning specifically the “bush” phrase, but from that thread I’d draw people’s attention to post 13. (I don’t know how to post links to specific posts in a thread without it being a link to just that post, which I don’t want to do so as not to lose context.)
Yes, Shodan, you’re arguing that since A has the same semantic content as B and B is not racist, it follows that A is not racist. But to that reasoning there are a lot of counterexamples. I’ll just give one, after which I’m sure you’ll have the idea:
Since “nigger” has the same semantic content as “black person” and “black person” isn’t racist, it follows that “nigger” isn’t racist.
So he could say “the Nazis were right, the Jews should be wiped off the planet”, and you wouldn’t think his employer would have the right to fire him? It’s just a difference in opinion on whether the Jews should live or die? Or he could say “it’s perfectly okay to have sex with children, just don’t get caught”?
Or are these opinions different?
Holy shit, dude. Holy, holy shit.
They had a perfectly legitimate business reason: they didn’t want his image fucking up their reputation and profit margin.
Who are you to insist that SiriusXM is wrong for not keeping this guy on their payroll? He isn’t entitled to their airwaves, you know.
Pure D bullshit. He’s not required to wear a scarlet A. I am, however, free to say that he’s a stupid racist asshole. Them’s my first amendment rights.
As for losing his job because of a difference of opinion? He got his job because of his opinions! DO you think that if a Fox News commentator started going on the show every day singing the praises of Obama and insulting Boehner and mocking Fox News’s “Fair and Balanced” motto that they’d keep their job? Do you think that I’d keep my job as a teacher if I started publicly saying that children are stupid and unteachable? It’s perfectly common to be required to hold a particular opinion (or at least act as if you do) in order to keep a job.
That whole “thought crime” business is insanely stupid. Nobody is going to jail. Nobody is wearing a red A. Freedom to (not) associate rights are being exercised alongside free speech rights. That’s all.
If you click on the thread title link from a single post, it should jump you back to the thread, but in context (or, like this) - you can then use that link instead by copying from the address bar (or just right-clicking and going “copy link location” on that thread title link)
Maybe because the race realists actually have evidence on their side, instead of political dogma and ideological fashions?
While I’d vaguely identify with the ‘race realist’ rather than ‘race denialist’ side of the spectrum, I’m not convinced at this point, that the claims about genetically based racial differences in IQ are either right or wrong. I think the jury is still out, although some of the sillier claims of the race denialists (that IQ differences are due to culture, poverty, etc.) are clearly garbage. And, of course, ‘innate/biological’ doesn’t mean ‘genetically based’, nor does it mean ‘unchangeable’. Having said that, I think one side generally has more respect for unbiased scientific procedures and ideology-free research than the other one, and it’s not yours.
I don’t think I know enough about his political and moral views to know for sure.
The ‘race realists’ do not have evidence on their side. They’re making bad conclusions based on bad science.
Cosidering that parental income has a well-known correlation with IQ test scores, which is not denied by even the ‘race realists’, I think your knowledge on this subject is pretty lacking.
The reason I use ‘savage’ to refer to cultures with backward practices (like slavery, cannibalism, widow-burning, etc.) is precisely because of its history: in this case, because I want to soundly reject the idea that all cultures are equal, and because I want to convery an expectation that members of those cultures ought to change. The reason I use ‘savage’ to refer to individuals who do disgusting things is somewhat similar.
I’m not particularly bothered if you choose to wag your fingers, or whatever.
“Nigger” doesn’t have the same semantic content as “black person”.
Regards,
Shodan
Ha HA Ha!
The “race realists” have their entire underpinnings based on outright lies, like those of Richard Lynn.
Tell that to the scientists who work in the field, like, say the members of the AAPA
HA, HA, HA. Sure, Rushton and Lynn are unbiased and ideology-free.:rolleyes:
What the everliving fuck?
Those savage Confederates. And the Romans - buncha savages, I tell you.