oh noes, I am insulted by the malcontent Miller who spends his days being an asshole in the pit, obviously with nothing more to add than vitrol to this whole board. What am I to do?
It’s also plausibly something that could be said by a genuine bigot who really dislikes black people. Normally, I’m all about giving people the benefit of the doubt, but Imus makes jokes like this all the time, and has been called on it in the past, and has decided that he apparently doesn’t care if his commentary makes him look like a raging bigot. So, he gets treated like a raging bigot. Sucks to be him, but it’s not like he didn’t have plenty of warnings before this.
He’s screwed up quite a bit in exactly the same way. It may indeed have been an innocent screw up, but when someone keeps making the same innocent screw ups, over and over, there’s a pretty good chance that that person is simply incompetent, and doesn’t deserve the paycheck he’s receiving.
No one is stopping anyone from making crude jokes. No one is stopping Imus from making crude jokes. NBC has simply decided that they don’t want to foot the bill for broadcasting his jokes nationwide. I have little doubt that, in a few months, some other broadcaster will decide that there’s a valuable market out there for Imus’s humor and give him another job. Or he can create his own venue for it. The internet is full of employment opportunities for loudmouthed idiots. Imus could do just fine here.
You could continue in your promising career as a shameless hypocrite, I suppose. You do seem to have a natural calling for it.
But—as I thought I stated quite clearly before—if you’re complaining not just because you don’t personally like Indian food, but BECAUSE THE RESTAURANT IS ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING WRONG, then your complaints are not just “putting your personal tastes ahead of anyone else’s”.
Let me get this straight: are you trying to argue that there’s nothing ethically wrong with what Imus did? That whether or not a radio broadcaster should refer to a well-behaved college sports team as a bunch of “nappy-headed ho’s” is merely a matter of “personal taste”? :eek:
Because if so, then I can see why you don’t think anybody should be publicly complaining about it. But surely you can grasp the fact that reasonable people may disagree with you on this one?
Well, you can’t have it both ways. You claim that you like having “extreme words” in the public discourse because they make the world “more interesting”. But what makes “extreme words” (i.e., racist and sexist slurs) “interesting” in the first place is the fact that they provoke strong emotions in many people.
You want to be able to say provocative things without running any risk that they might actually provoke negative reactions in other people. You want radio personalities like Imus to be able to make jokes “that resembles something a hateful person might say” without having anyone think he’s hateful. You want to be able to make racist and sexist jokes without fearing that anyone might infer that you’re actually racist or sexist.
Me, I’d like a magical flying pony that poops green mangoes and pisses fine Belgian ale. I’m just as likely to get my wish as you are, frankly.
Sure they are. The Board of Health inspected and said there was nothing wrong. But, that wasn’t good enough. I want them ruined.
(The FCC looks at the Imus issue and says no rules were broken)
I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether there was anything ethically wrong with what Imus did. It wasn’t illegal. If we, as a society, find it so reprehensible, then we should put our money where our pretending to be outraged mouths are and make it illegal. Right now it is just illegal by proxy, and haphazardly enforced.
And, yeah, in comedy contexts “nappy headed hos” can be used in a comedic context. That same black (which I feel the need to include here!) comic (damn I need to find the clip) was explaining why “nappy headed hos” was funny and not offensive, whereas “nappy headed athletes” would have been not funny, and would have been offensive. To paraphrase, he said that it was SO over the top that you HAD to realize that it was comedic context and not intended to be mean.
I do see where reasonable people can disagree, and I appreciate that you’ve been quite reasonable. It’s been difficult to come by!
No, I don’t. I just want the “other people” to consider context and understand the virtue of a proportional response. The public outcry that (I hope) is now ended would be more appropriate if Imus had seriously said something like, “Black people are ugly.”
Again, I want people to consider context and to read for comprehension.
That depends what you define as a racist or sexist joke. A joke that references racism is not necessarily a racist joke, in my opinion.
EDIT: Going to the movies, back later tonight, will respond then if necessary.
And why the hell do you think they advertise in the first place? I can just see it now, the board sitting around and saying: “You know, free speech is a nice idea, let’s pay millions of dollars to sponsor an ex-junkie to make jokes and interview politicians. We don’t even have to have them mention our name, we’ll just do it cause we’re nice”.
Too retarded to understand your high school civics class, eh?
OMG IF TEH PPL WHO RUN A MEDIA COMPANY DECIDE THEY DONT WANT TO EMPLOY SOMEONE WHOS RACIST ITS CENSORSHIP!!11!!1 FREE SPEECH MEANS CBS IS OBLIGATED TO RUN HIS PROGRAM EVEN IF THEY DONT WANT TO!11!!1
Wow, you’re just so amazingly stupid it’s almost hard to believe. Is this some sort of weird joke, DSeid? Or do you actually believe that there’s some sort of moral obligation for CBS to play host to content they don’t want to? Where is their free speech right, DSeid?
There’s not a “fine line” anywhere. “Censor” and “censure” are entirely different concepts. Are you trying to claim that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson “censored” him? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard since DSeid’s post. They don’t have the power to do so. Complaining about something someone else says is not “censorship”, dummy.
People have the right to express their disgust with things others say. Being held to account for the things you say is not a violation of your “freedom of speech”. If CBS declines to run this jackass’s show anymore, that’s their right. They get to decide what sort of content they’re willing to play host to. If the public gets upset at Imus for saying what he said, and advertisers decline to advertise on the show anymore because they don’t want their good names associated with that kind of sexist, racist idiocy, that’s not censorship. That’s the free market. It’s how our society works.
The fact that it’s even necessary to explain simple fucking things like this to the denizens of the SDMB is why I won’t be renewing my subscription. It’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion here because you have to spend all your time trying to teach idiots things they should have learned in high school.
So, let me get this straight. Al Sharpton, a mass movement rally of ONE, exerted economic pressure on BMW, American Express, General Motors and others to the point they kowtowed to him (well, and Jesse Jackson). *Even if * Sharpton could get every Black person in America (let’s limit it to that group) to not have anything to do with these companies, how much effect do you think that would have?
As Keith Olbermann reported, even that godawful company Head-On cancelled its advertising. How awful and untouchable do you have be for even them to not want to have anything to do with you?
And your analogy is way off for a whole lot of different reasons.
Dude, please, pass the Dutchie in either direction; you’ve been hogging it all week.
And it wasn’t the FCC that fired Imus, so what’s your point?
Did you just read FCC and snap to a judgement about the context it was being used in? I’m making the same point as you, that the FCC couldn’t (and shouldn’t and didn’t) do a thing. Read the interchange between myself and Kimstu, it’s all there.
It is censorship; but not in the legal or constitutionally protected sense. It’s the same censorship we use on children who are too young to watch hard-core porn or ultraviolent movies.
The people who petitioned the networks for Imus’s removal were requesting them to censor him as opposed to censoring him themselves by not watching. The networks are the ones who were authorized to actually censor him by removing him from the airwaves. It is completely within their rights. I do not believe for a second that the networks wre interested in it from a moral standpoint, but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Epimetheus, I read your posts more than a few times, and it did seem like you were saying those things (even after the correction). Beyond racism, which you did condemn, I think the “ho” part of his comment(s) was equally egregious – even more so because he didn’t know them. How would he know they were promiscuous or prostitutes?
I know you probably don’t care, but the first interpretations of what you meant kind of left me a bit disappointed. I’ve always thought of you as a reasonable, intelligent and passionate Doper. You more than likely still are, it’s just the wording in your first few points suggested otherwise momentarily.
You’re saying, then, that the only public action we as a society should be prepared to take against any behavior we find unethical is to legislate against it.
I can’t agree with that. I think there’s a whole spectrum of social reactions at our disposal to use against different kinds of undesirable behavior—everything from legislation to public outcry to boycotts to demonstrations to op-eds. I don’t see why we should decide that as long as something’s not actually illegal, then it’s by definition okay, and if we don’t like it then we either need to make it illegal or shut the fuck up about it.
Well, I feel rather guilty about it considering the forum, but I didn’t have time to go back over my posts and insert the requisite obscenities—sorry, “extreme words”. 
Would those be extremities?
I hadn’t considered that question. Thanks.
I don’t think I was saying that though. I think speaking out against his words is just fine. Going on the news and saying that he was wrong is fine. Hell, organize a discussion to dissect the issue.
I just think that circumventing the true public opinion by threatening boycotts is wrong. It’s a way that a very small number of people manage to exert control. I can see situations where that can be desireable, but never when it is exerted to quash someone else’s speech, nomatter how awful.
And I can’t see it ending here. Again, Focus on the Family scares the crap out of me. Why do you assume they can’t pull the same thing? If anything I think they have a bigger following than any of the leaders showcased in this case. And they hate more stuff!
I’m a big proponent of the belief that the 10% on the extremes of any issue screams the loudest, and gets on the news. But eventually, the 80% of us remaining work it out rationally. (there are unfortunate exceptions!)
But, yeah, unless we’re willing to legislate against it, it’s allowed. In Micahel Richard’s case, it worked itself out without boycotts. His rant was so obviously intended to be racist, that reasonable people were not going to pay money to see him do comedy. He is toxic, and probably for life. Maybe I’m naive, but I didn’t get that vibe here.
If a very small number of people are participating in the boycott, the boycott’s not going to work.
I’m no friend of Focus on Family, either, but I don’t think they’re analogous, as they actually do seek to pass legislation to prohibit speech they don’t like. That’s something I don’t approve of, because it circumvents the market entirely. Firing Imus was a market-based decision: his broadcaster decided that they could make more money without Imus than they can with Imus. FoF wants to take that decision out of the hands of the broadcaster entirely. That is censorship. This is simply a public corporation try to best meet the desires of its customer base.
How is that different from a boycott? People don’t like what Richards said, people won’t pay to see him say things, people stop giving him a forum from which to speak. How is this different from what’s happening with Imus?
That’s funny, cause I feel opposite. I have no problem with this!
I think the differences are subtle, but I think the public was whipped into a frenzy by charismatic asses (this would have happened in Richards’ case had the outrage not been so uniform. Hell, my brother is an out and out racist, and he couldn’t defend the dude).
I think the only reason this had a similar outcome was that the advertisers were economically threatened. Had GM honestly said, “Economics bedamned! I don’t care if we lose money! GM can’t be condoning this awful behavior!” that would have been the system working itself out. There is no way that is what happened here.
In the end, I think the advertisers are fools, because I don’t think that the threatened boycotts would work. But, no one wants to be the first one to test this hypothesis. The benefit (advertising on an aged DJs show) doesn’t outweigh the risk (nationwide boycott building steam). This was the lowest hanging fruit to go after. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the target is a bit more challenging. Advertisers won’t be so willing to walk away from more lucrative personalities.
So, you’re actually taking the pro-censorship position in this thread. Because if you think the proper response to speech you don’t like is to have the government step in and prevent that speech… that’s the text-book definition of censorship.
I very much doubt that’s the case. The vast, vast majority of boycotts simply don’t work. They simply end up drawing more attention (read: free advertising) to whatever is being boycotted. Most corporations love that sort of attention. The sponsors pulled out here because the outrage was widespread enough that it made more sense to cater to that demographic, than it did to cater to the demographic that was going to continue listening to Imus no matter what. That’s nothing to do with any threatened boycott: it’s just good business sense to cater to the larger segment of society, which in this case is “people who are sick of hearing from Don Imus.”
Hey, I’ve done my part to encourage an arrogant asshole to leave. And who said that my day was a waste? Enjoy the rest of your life!
But while you are still gracing us with the joy of your intellectual presence (I just know he’s going to brag how high his IQ is any second now! :)) allow me to make it clear.
CBS is under no obligation to give him airtime. And of course Imus being fired was the result of the analysis of bottom line and only that. But that Indian resturaut analogy is cogent.
The media circus was used as a blunt instrument to remove Imus from the air and to censor the airwaves. Not governmental censorship but censorship nevertheless. To pretend that this is not censorship is just silly.
Now censorship is not always a bad thing. We have censorship on these boards, for example. Certain types of “speech” are allowable only in certain forums and even the Pit has “speech” that is not allowed (such as misrepresenting inside a quote tag). I will censor the speech of someone in my household to the extent that crude language is not allowed in front of my younger children and any racist remarks will get you out of my house. Sexism is allowable because it is usually my wife besmirching us males and I am afraid of her. 
I self-censor myself depending on the context. And “hate speech” is not allowed on the airwaves.
The question is whether this form of censorship, censorship by media mob frenzy bringing pressure to bear on advertisers who in turn put the screws on the media outlet, is the kind of censorship we want or approve of.