Dr. Laura wants her first amendment rights back...

Great Debates
161

We don’t get to hear much about the caller’s situation because Schlessinger felt the need to go off on her rant about the word nigger. They spent more time talking about the rant than about the problem that she was calling about. So I would hesisitate to draw any conclusions about her intentions based on the little that was said.

It depends on what was actually said, and we don’t find out what was actually said. It sounds like she feels the neighbor makes stereotypical assumptions about black people and then asks her about them a lot. She could see it as the neighbor obsessively talking about her race and asking her to make pronouncements on behalf of all black people. On the other hand if the neighbor is asking questions that make negative presumptions about black people (say, “why can’t black people speak better English and why can’t they hold down a job?”) then he’s not really asking her a question, he’s just making derogatory comments about black people in front of her. Since she doesn’t get to go into more detail before the host starts dismissing her reasons for calling, we don’t know.

She does say later that “the N-word’s been thrown around” (presumably about other people, not her). That would be an example of talking about black people like she’s not there and not black.

The bit about Obama is Schlessinger trying to bring politics into it for no particular reason. The caller was not talking about politics, but she felt it necessary to say that black people not only voted for Obama, they did it because of his race “without giving much thought.” What does this have to do with her problem?

The point was moronic, and as I already said, it was incorrect.

Some people did have unrealistic expectations of what Obama’s election meant about racism. But it’s true that there has been a more public (if sometimes veiled) expression of racism since January 2009, and in a lot of ways it’s been surprising to see.

Fair enough. And yet here we are.

It sounds like you’re implying the caller was out to get Schlessinger, which is ridiculous: she called her show to ask her for advice. (I can’t imagine what possessed her to do that, but it’s not my problem.) She was offended by what she was saying and maybe by the fact that she was ignoring her problem, so she demanded an explanation.

162

Palin and Dr. Laura, two Professional Victims Extraordinaire TM

163
  1. I never said I wanted to … try not to project your thoughts into my intentions.
  2. I should have been clearer - not only should words have no restrictions but people shouldn’t give a shit either. They’re just words.
164

I agree if you are talking about a word by itself.

However words have a context when spoken and that people absolutely should give a shit about. Some words, like “nigger”, are difficult to use without offense as it is largely a pejorative word. That said the context is what matters and words need to be judged on that basis.

165

All insults are just words, but they’re still insults.

166

I think we have enough from the caller. Again, caller complained about things her husband’s family says like she is not there and not black and the very example caller provides does not support that. If her example was some generic statement in third person it would be good enough but it was not. Caller was in fact whining. Reminds of that Seinfeld episode and Jerry’s uncle who sees anti-Semite in everyone and everything.

Not true. On a pointed question to provide an example, caller answers with an example to which Laura says it’s not racist to ask a question like that. It just isn’t. We don’t need to speculate because example is right there and if it was enough for that conversation it should be enough for us. Your speculation is only aiding your foregone conclusion but that is not the subject of this discussion.

Again, you are assuming what the caller wanted to say and not what caller actually said. I think we should work from what Laura worked from (even though Laura might have interrupted her) and not add our own imagination to it. Which, on a second reading of your post comes to mind. And it is the idea that many people simply don’t like Laura from before and just compounded into the conversation all the negative feelings they harboured including adding stuff that was not said.

Even though I don’t see where you discussed the point…

Just to make sure this is the point I think Laura made: point being that it is nonsensical that some group has a “right” to use it as if they know how to use it and go on and on about it’s history and why is it okay for them to use it like it really is self-evident truth.

And that point is based on the following statement Laura made:

LAURA: I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing.

That is exactly how I feel about it and I even have a post about it here. Why is this moronic? Or, why my understanding of the point is incorrect?

Yes, I think the caller was putting Laura on the spot with caller’s insistence as per already posted exchange:

So it’s OK to say “n–”?

And when Laura answers quite reasonably that it depends how it’s said she still goes on with:

Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?

The caller, instead of discussing conditions under which it is okay to say the word, goes on typical bully tirade with repeating the question again and then adding “ever” to the third time caller asked the same question. That is definition of verbal bullying. If someone was bullying me with that sort of questioning I would tell them to f-- off; who the he’ll the caller thinks she is?

On the other hand, I would not speculate if caller had that scenario in mind when she called but that is how it was payed out.

Finally, question for you - do you think that Laura, when talking how on HBO the word goes off all the time and ended rhetorical point with repeating the word three times (which, as I explained one might do with “fuck” or “duck” depending on the subject discussed), do you think she was spewing the N word?

167

Nigger is the third rail. She thought she was big enough and respected enough that she could step on the rail and win. She was wrong. She suffers for believing she was special and people would rally around her. People ran from her as fast as they could. She learned the lesson the hard way.

168

Not to hijack my own thread, but I think she’s right that racism has come to another level with Obama’s presidency. For a long time I’ve been wracking my brain to come up with a time in the past when folks showed up at their rival’s political rallies sporting guns, and I can’t. It’s like showing up where Obama is speaking swinging a rope and then looking innocent and saying “What???” like it’s perfectly normal. They said they were just making a statement. What statement was that? Try as I might, I can’t think of a single reason why those people showed up with a gun other than to advertise an implicit threat.

And I say that as someone who is greatly disappointed with Obama and won’t be voting for him again. Maybe there are more people who do not care about skin color now, but the ones that do care seem to care more than ever.

169

“The N-word’s been thrown around.” Do you not understand how that might make the caller feel like they are discussing black people as if she were not there or not black?

We didn’t get to hear a single actual example. She gave a general statement about what the questions are like, and then came the ranting.

The caller didn’t get to fully explain herself. I don’t know what she was going to say but it’s reasonable to point out she didn’t get to fully tell her story.

My first post in this thread.

It’s not bullying. She gets angry, yes. Probably because called the show to ask for advice and her problem was being ignored so the host could make some generalizations about black comedians and Barack Obama. She did get pissed off, and she didn’t offer a calm and rational response, it’s true. The question was irrelevant to what she called about.

I don’t think I understand the question. She unquestionably said “nigger” 11 times. Are you asking me if that counts as spewing? (I guess it does - who cares?) Are you asking me if I think her use of the word makes her a racist? I already said it didn’t.

170

So here we are discussing two moot points - one, Laura use of word was not intended as an insult and two, caller was not so innocent after all.

End result - Laura being forced to resign.

Nice world we live in.

171

It seems that Laura had an agenda. She went off on using the 3rd rail word when it was not the subject of the conversation. She was looking for an opportunity to prove something. Big mistake.

172

Sounds like you’re implying I agreed with you about this. I don’t agree.

She wasn’t forced to do anything and has not resigned from anything.

She’s done more than her share to make the world a nastier place, and some of it was on display during this call. And she’s much more to blame for what happened than the caller is.

173

It is a nice enough world. You make boneheaded mistakes that make the company look bad, it WILL cost you – whether you messed up out of malice or stupidity or recklessness or a combination.

And she did not get fired or was forced to resign from anything. Her contract was up at year’s end anyway. When she started losing sponsors, that meant that at the time her contract was up for renewal she would be in a weaker position to negotiate both money and conditions of contract. She looked at that and took the reasonable decision to NOT deliberately take a loss just to prove her point.

IMO, in the scenario as described by newcomer, the Doc Laura could have said: “I’ve already answered you. I’m sorry you don’t like the answer. What you want is to get me to say you’re right. Sorry, but this is the Dr. Laura show, dear: in this show, it’s YOU who agrees that I’M right. Don’t like it, go listen to Fresh Air.”

Of course she was not in a frame of mind to do that, as astro said, she is used to “cowed obeisance” when she calls out a participant. The times I’ve had to listen, a common call has been one that posits a situation that’s not highly controversial but is a total no-brainer on what would be the right/wrong thing to do, and where I was left with the impression that they knew it all along, but apparently only being berated by Dr. Laura about it made them feel validated in making the correct choice.

Indeed, extremely tone-deaf handling of the situation by Schlessinger; even if she was drawn into it, that is something*** you don’t let yourself get drawn into***. Problem with Dr. Laura is that she herself has made something of a name by badgering Caller X, Y or Z into agreeing to some sort of moral absolute judgement she has proclaimed, and dismissing any “but…” from the caller’s side. Then this caller put HER on the spot by insisting “but is it OK ever”. If it’s me in the studio, the answer is “I see what you’re doing there and I’m not walking into it, good-bye.”

174

The problem is the good doctor thinks the first amendment guarantees her the right to say anything she wants without consequences. It is lack of personal accountability that strikes listeners as arrogant entitlement, as though she is being victimized for speaking her mind. Freedom of speech does not mean there are not consequences for saying thoughtless, hurtful words.

175

That’s the nasty free market for you.

176

It’s not even the free market. Her show didn’t get canceled because of a sponsor boycott, although the free market did take her down several pegs because of her comments about gays years ago. There is no evidence she was forced to resign. She says she is quitting because she doesn’t like being criticized for what she says. Unless it comes out that her network was putting pressure on her, the market doesn’t enter into it.

177

She is not in jail. She was not beaten up. She was free to have her say and she did. But she misread what people would think when she went there. She thought it would be a teaching opportunity. Turned out it was, I wonder if she learned anything?

178

But her point is a valid one.

People have the right to be offended if they choose to be. And anyone can say that “blank” offends them… and fill in the blank with whatever they choose to be offended by.

Her point was that certain people, groups in our culture today nolonger will engage you to debate you. Nor are they interested in an apollogy. They attack you to silence you and hurt you. In her case the brew-ha-ha was an attack against her sponcers, affiliats, and any other organization that might support her. That sort of attack is underhanded and unethical.

How can we as a civilized sociaty continue to grow togeather and live peacable with one another and learn to tolerate differences of opinion if one side of the isle (as it were) choose to shoot you on sight rather than debate you? Could it be they do not want to risk being proven wrong in an open forum?

In any case, I do not see how the use of a word is initself “discrimination.” Nor do I see how anyone can reserve a word for ony one group of people… without first being discriminatory… a clear hypocrasy when you think about it.

179

It isn’t. She’s whining because she doesn’t like being criticized.

No one was attacked. This is a line of self-pitying garbage Schlessinger is pitching. She was criticized publicly, but that’s all.

What debate is not being had here? “Gays are a biological error?” “It’s okay for black comedians to say nigger?”

Nobody said it was.

180

I wonder if in response to the good Dr.'s use of the word nigger, the caller had asked how she felt about the word kike, just how long that call would have lasted.

CMC fnord!