And mostly they went without notice. You can’t have righteous indignation over something that wasn’t brought to your attention. Maybe the reason it wasn’t brought to your attention is the belief that no one would possibly care, or that there’s only so much stupidity that can be covered in a day and we need to prioritize.
We all have freedom of speech. If exercise it, we have to be prepared for those who oppose our views to chime in, sometimes vehemently, sometimes irrationally. But they have the right of free speech too.
Aside from that, I don’t get the ‘where was the furor over this’ argument. Part of free speech is the right not to speak on matters you don’t particulaly care about. That, in and of itself, doesn’t negate anyone’s criticsm of an issue. IMO, anyway.
Almost right. This was during Rush’s short lived tv show. He did not hold up a picture, the picture was flashed on the screen, presumably by the control booth. Rush started giggling and saying that it was a mistake, and as I recall apologized, while still giggling. I’m not sure if he continued the bit or not, if he didn’t that would tend to support the notion that it was no accident Chelsea’s picture was flashed.
I don’t recall if he ever did. I do recall, however, at some point there was a picture of Rush laughing it up with Hillary Clinton, Rush later explained that the picture was taken when he met Hillary at a wedding and took the opportunity to apologize for the Chelsea incident, which would seem to indicate that intentional or not he acknowledged it was wrong.
On the same note, am I the only one to remember the SNL skit about the same time about how the Gore girls were so much more attractive than Chelsea? It was pretty brutal as I recall. Maybe I am the only one who remembers, SNL was not doing so well back then.
You’re joking, right? I think that any white guy that would say that, trash-talking or not, in the NBA and was heard by a member of the press would quickly find himself branded a racist and he’d have to hold a press conference and express his deep regret and whatnot, and still people would say that he should be banned from the NBA over it, or at least heavily fined and suspended for a few games. I really, really doubt that any white guy in his right mind would say “get this black fool off me or I’m gonna score 40”. It would practically be career suicide.
I don’t believe that Rush didn’t know that a picture of Chelsea was coming up.
I don’t really care that he made the joke. Everyone is fair game. On SNL, everyone IS fair game. I have no problem with that. If it’s funny, it’s cool. If it isn’t funny, it falls flat.
I would prefer it, though, if he made the joke and didn’t pretend not to be in on it. Which, BTW, I’m not convinced he did. As you describe it, his immediate ‘apology’ seems like standard showmanship. A part of the act, if you will. I didn’t see the bit, so I can’t be sure. Again, no harm. Chelsea was fair game.
If you clear this up for me…did Rush actually take heat for the joke later and try to back away from it? Or was what you described the end of it?
Well, I believe you have hit upon a point, but, as evident to your attempted defense of “political correctness”, it was totally inadvertant and a point that I am sure you wish to avoid.
Why is it that those examples of PC violations that I listed went without notice or little mention? Could it possibly be that the media deliberately downplay instances of “politically incorrect speech” spoken by minorities? And if so, why would they?
Let me answer.
The establishment media is a big piece of the “politically correct jigsaw puzzle”, and has annointed itself as the enforcement arm of the “Thought Police” for the liberal orthodoxy.
Let’s examine the Limbaugh quote in question:
Was Limbaugh really off-base in suggesting that the media, in support of multiculturalism, is desirous to portray minorities in a favorable light? I say, “NO”!!
When minorities exhibit atrocious behavior or commit violent crime against whites, the media deliberately downplays those acts. And when those acts are reported on, they are accompanied with editorials calling for tolerance and reminding the audience that the criminal acts are committed by individuals, not a particular race. The media puts itself through contortions to insulate minorities from negative stereotypes.
But, when it is whites that commit so-called “hatecrimes” against minorities, those acts are trumpeted and white society as a whole is to blame. No better revelation of this dichotomy exists than with the media’s handling of the James Byrd dragging death and the crime spree of Reginald and Jonathan Carr.
Both crimes were equally atrocious and both had a racial component. The difference is that the media spotlighted the white on black murder and all but ignored the black on white murder. The media considers this double-standard as necessary in the promotion of multiculturalism. In fact, the media has engaged in the systematic brainwashing of American society to achieve those ends.
Mention the term “hate-crime” to the average individual, and he or she will almost automatically conjure up the mental image of a white persecuting a minority. Problem is, FBI crime statistics reveal that minorities are several times more likely to commit what could be defined as a “hate-crime” against a white, than the commonly accepted myth of whites being the primary perpetrators of “hate”.
So, how do you think this has come about? Think it’s all just happenstance?
Oh this is asinine. Speech always has consequences - indeed, if it didn’t people wouldn’t speak. What you are really arguing for is that speech should only have postive consequences.
And that, my friend, is absurd. Negative consequences, like Rush’s resignation or the Dixie Chicks losing gigs, are a fully contemplated and intended part of the concept of freedom of speech in this country. It is known as “the marketplace of ideas” - an idea, and the advocates of that idea, will receive respect or scorn based upon how the marketplace (IOW, the general public) views the idea. The point of the First Amendment is not to promote the idea that all of us, in government or out, should allow anyone to say whatever they wish and spare the speaker the consequences of the speech. The point, instead, is to take government out of the equation, and let the public decide whether to place the speaker on the figurative pedestal or ride the speaker out of town on the figurative rail.
You see, this concept of the “market place of ideas” is flawed. Do you not agree that radical ideas, or simply ideas that go against the most vocal will be shot down out of hand. The consequences of voicing against the mob mentality will cause many to just not say them at all, thus defeating the so called “market place”
Sorry, but mob rule does not allow for freedom speech. Bleating “four legs good, two legs bad” when ever anyone questions the ruling authorities gets you nothing but tyranny of the majority.
Now, I am not saying that any laws or the constitution are being violated by doing such. I am saying that from a cultural and philosophic standpoint, the populous targeting its members for issuing unpopular ideas is IMO wrong.
It may be flawed, MRTUFFPAWS, but it is the best system for the free exchange of ideas that there is. That is because artificially inhibiting speech based on “popularity” (only the unpopular viewpoint may speak) is still artificially inhibiting speech. So who decides who gets to speak and who doesn’t? Who decides what speech is “unpopular” enough to merit this extra protection? What about speech that is legitimately unpopular because it’s offensive, or just plain stupid? Does your favoring of unpopular ideas extend to unpopular ideas you don’t happen to agree with? Not to mention, that if you give the government the right to inhibit speech based on artificial and subjective criteria like how “popular” or “unpopular” it is, it is then far too easy for the government to start censoring speech for other reasons – like that it disagrees with what the government wants you to hear.
The United States is not under “mob rule,” the last time I checked. Rush Limbaugh and the Dixie Chicks are not in hiding, in fear for their lives based on their speech. What prevents the tyranny of the majority is having people speak up despite the costs, and enshrining everyone’s right to do so – not by muzzling certain people’s right to free speech, an idea that IMO obviously is more conducive to tyranny than the current arrrangement.
I emphatically do not agree. Amazingly radical ideas - such as racial equality, Social Security, and preemptive war - have repeatedly become mainstream in American society. Radical ideas that get shot down are, by and large, bad radical ideas.
And let us not forget the potential positive consequences. If the Dixie Chicks had managed to pull the mainstream along with them, they would have received greater attention and adulation, translating into more sales, greater attendance at concerts, etc. Had the mainstream agreed with Rush, he would have achieved higher ratings and more income. Both took a chance, and lost. C’est la vie.
I never said to respect dissident, or radical speech. I meant all speech should be respected, not just that which is unsavory to the most vocal.
Is there a reason why you feel a need to lash out against people who have an opinion other than one to your liking? Why can’t “thanks for your opinion, but I disagree” work?
Who said anything about “lashing out”? I don’t feel the need to even speak up against every person with whom I disagree. But, OTOH, and unlike you apparently, I also don’t feel every disagreeing opinion is worthy of respect.
You are confronted by a virulent racist homophobe. There he stands, in front of you, preaching the value of genocide for people of color and/or homosexuals. He has the ear of an audience, but there’s no question his opinion is “unpopular” to the majority of the populace.
Is your reaction “thanks for your opinion, but I disagree”? Or do you feel the need to to make your contrary opinion known in the most explicit terms? I’m not talking about attacking people; I’m talking about combatting speech with speech, and about exercising your right to refrain from economically supporting people whose ideas or opinions you find repugnant.
You OTOH appear to be theorizing that people who represent the minority position on any issue should be given some sort of “protection” in their speech, if not legally then through politesse or social convention. Failure to allow them this protection, or “free pass” in whatever they may choose to say, in your mind constitutes “mob rule.” This simply does not follow. Any person in our society may speak freely – both those for a particular position and those against it. You cannot protect one side without inhibiting free speech as a whole – and, believe me, once the idea that it is okay to inhibit or restrain free speech is introduced, it will not be long until the majority is using that to silence the minority, not the other way around.
The logic that ‘over-rated and black’ automatically means ‘over-rated because black’, to me, is racist because they only critera Rush used was skin color.
It’s not racist to hint that black quarterbacks may be overrated because of an agenda-driven media, (which may have been true in the past) but to state as fact that this specific over-rated black quarterback is over-rated because he is black without any other reason to think so is obviously a stereotype… and in this case racist.
Rush’s attitude contributes to many blacks’ feelings that they are in a hostile media environment because no white quarterback, in the absence of other evidence, would ever face this type of racial scrutiny.
On an unrelated side note…McNabb was not overrated.