In Defence of Imus and Disgust for Sharpton

[DMC]

@Fiveyearlurker

But, that’s obviously not what happened here. They announced a suspension. That didn’t quiet the threats of boycotts, and they announced a firing. It was 100% economic.

@Fiveyearlurker

The ability to fire workers, either for practical reasons that the employee is not doing a good job, or for economic reasons that the company must alter it’s workforce, is absolutely essential to grow an economy.

Hmm.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Miller

All of them folded like a deck chair at the threat of a boycott? Giant, multinational corporations, with billions and billions of dollars, and not one of them thought, “Let’s hang on and see if this boycott even gets off the ground,” before they threw in the towel?

They did. They announced a suspension. They tried to hang in there with that.

The alternative is social conscience. You think GM made this business decision because it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Sorry, I’m procorporation, and I don’t buy that. It was 100% the result of a risk/benefit analysis.

@Miller

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Imus was a pretty easy target. Twenty years ago, not so much. There will be, soon, an attempt to get someone bigger off the airwaves. These same corporations will do the math again and see if the risk/benefit analysis comes up in favor of waiting it out.

@Miller

I’ve responded strictly to what I read. If I read it wrong, I apologize, but I don’t appreciate the accusations of deliberate dishonesty.

Point to the part where what I wrote could be misread as advocating such speech involving hanging niggers and shooting kikes.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@DMC

Hmm.

Uh huh. And this was, again “100% economic”.

[Caridwen]

@Fiveyearlurker

First I heard of it. Sorry.

Here’s an interesting article about it.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=zimmerman102301

And this is from a very liberal magazine. Discusses three people who were fired for something they said.

"No one said free speech means that you can say whatever you want and everybody will still love you for it…But don’t be surprised when people disagree with you and decide to express themselves by booing or writing a letter to your editor to protest what you said. "

[Miller]

@Fiveyearlurker

Fine. Let them waste their time. They’re allowed to do that. I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.

It’s not just their time they’re wasting. They’re wasting the time of the lawyers and judges who have to slap their stupid laws down, and they’re wasting the money of the taxpayers who have to foot the bills for the aforementioned lawyers and judges. And that’s something I have a problem with.

You’re being dishonest here again. You know that’s not what I said. In fact, I said the opposite. I’m NOT in favor of supporting the rights to censor speech. I’m in favor of people discussing it. Any other opinion would be AGAINST freedom of speech.

No, that’s exactly what you said. If that’s not what you meant, learn how to express yourself clearly.

Although that might not be much help for you, as it seems that your thinking is pretty badly muddled.

Third dishonesty. You know DAMN well that’s not what I said. That speech is illegal. Period. The government already has a say in that matter. There is no need for additional legislation.

I didn’t say that’s what you said, jackass. I was stating my position. Don Imus should be legally able to say whatever the fuck he wants on the air, and the government should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Argue honestly.

I am. Stop whining because you can’t express yourself clearly.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Caridwen

Here’s an interesting article about it.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=zimmerman102301

And this is from a very liberal magazine. Discusses three people who were fired for something they said.

"No one said free speech means that you can say whatever you want and everybody will still love you for it…But don’t be surprised when people disagree with you and decide to express themselves by booing or writing a letter to your editor to protest what you said. "

Subscription only, apparently.

[Miller]

@Apos

It’s not being a dickhole, that’s how.

Well, that’s an illuminating answer. :rolleyes:

[Miller]

@Fiveyearlurker

They did. They announced a suspension. They tried to hang in there with that.

I’m talking about his advertisers, not his broadcaster.

The alternative is social conscience. You think GM made this business decision because it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Sorry, I’m procorporation, and I don’t buy that. It was 100% the result of a risk/benefit analysis.

I have never, at any point in this thread, argued that GM or any other Imus advertiser pulled their spots out of the goodness of their hearts.

Point to the part where what I wrote could be misread as advocating such speech involving hanging niggers and shooting kikes.

I’ve never, at any point in this thread, said that you’d said that, either.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Miller

I didn’t say that’s what you said, jackass. I was stating my position. Don Imus should be legally able to say whatever the fuck he wants on the air, and the government should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

I apologize. I reread and you’re correct. But here’s where we flip sides again. Of course Imus should NOT be able to go on the air and suggest that hanging blacks or shooting Jews might be a good Saturday afternoon. The government damn well better arrest him if he does that. Not legal.

[monstro]

@Fiveyearlurker

What I don’t support is circumventing the legislature. If you want something censored, have the balls to see if it’s what the public wants by putting into law.

Why is it more “ballsy” to lobby Congress and wait months and months for a non-passable bill to be written and put on the floor, only to see it get voted down? If a person thinks specific speech is dangerous or deleterious to society, wouldn’t it make sense for that person to take immediate action? Isn’t it more ballsy to stand on the street corner with the picket sign, trying to get people to stop and listen to you?

You’re missing that the free market is just as democratic as the law-making process.

If the public doesn’t like something, it won’t buy it. Free market capitalism at work.

If the public doesn’t like something, it will support a bill banning it. Democracy at work.

The former is a million times preferable than the former, IMHO. All it takes for a bill to get the thumbs up is a simple majority in Congress, and once a law (or, worse, an ammendment) is passed, it’s hard to change it. But the latter is only subject to the dynamic whims of whatever audience is being targeted. A year from now, Imus might redeem himself and get his old job back. I’m betting he’ll be on Syrius within a month, making more money than he was before.

So I share Miller’s confusion about whatever your point is.

[Caridwen]

Regarding three people who were fired.

On September 22 Tom Gutting of the Texas City Sun wrote, “W. … has behaved like you would expect a first lady to. This is the time, however, he should be flexing those leadership muscles we heard so much about. …But what we are stuck with is a crippled president who continues to be controlled by his advisors. He’s not a leader. He’s a puppet, and it has never been more apparent.” The next day he was fired from the paper.

On September 17 Bill Maher, host of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect,” told his audience, “We have been the cowards lobbing, cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” Within two weeks of the broadcast more than a dozen local affiliates dropped “Politically Incorrect” and big-name sponsors Sears and FedEx pulled their ads from the show.

And on September 13, Ann Coulter recommended the following solution to the terrorist problem in her column on National Review Online: “We should invade [the terrorists’] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” On October 2 the editors of the website announced they would no longer carry Coulter’s column.

According to the article “…What determined their fates wasn’t an absence of free speech, but the existence of a free market…” Same with Imus.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Fiveyearlurker

.

Maybe you should have kept on lurking.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@monstro

You’re missing that the free market is just as democratic as the law-making process.

If the public doesn’t like something, it won’t buy it. Free market capitalism at work.

If the public doesn’t like something, it will support a bill banning it. Democracy at work.

I understand your point, and I disagree. It’s not as democratic. Not by a long shot. Me and some buddies could easily ruin a local restaurant by standing outside telling potential patrons that the food in there is awful. We could go online and pepper every website with bad reviews. We could ruin them. It wouldn’t matter if it were true or not.

[Apos]

@Kimstu

So? How is that anything but the free market in action? Why should you be automatically entitled to listen to something that’s not profitable enough to sustain its market share?

The free market is: if enough people want to listen to Imus, then there is a market for it, and he gets a show.

If you don’t like what he has to say, then well, don’t listen. If you have something to say you think is better… well… see if you can get enough people to listen to you so that it’s profitable enough for someone to sponsor you.

If the reason it’s not sustaining its market share is that I’m doing a better job of expressing my opposition to it than you are of expressing your support for it, then good for me. My opinion of the controversial product is more popular and/or better marketed than yours is, so I get what I want and you don’t. Suck it up, loser.

But that’s just being a big fat crybaby. “Expressing opposition” by trying to get someone off the air is a pussy move. It means that you know you can’t convince others not to listen, and you know that no one wants to listen to you either. So instead you do an end run and try to lobby the corporate sponsors and owners to have him taken off the air. That’s pathetic. It’s not unconstitutional, but why should I have any more respect for that than I have for people that go running crying to the government to “do something” about someone saying things you don’t want OTHER people to listen to?

Don Imus’s constitutional right to use expressions like “nappy-headed ho’s” in the hearing of anybody who wants to listen to him is absolutely unimpaired by these events. The only thing that’s been impaired is the commercial viability of his efforts to broadcast such expressions in exchange for money. Well, if you’re going to sell your free speech in the marketplace, that’s a risk you’ve got to take.

But that’s not the risk being taken. What really is at work here is not that someone like Imus can’t sustain his listeners. In fact, that’s exactly what makes the nannies SOOO angry. Unless he gets fired, people will probably continue to listen to him. That’s what makes the nannies so bitter. That’s why they need to boycott corporations rather than speaking out with words.

Horseshit. As a liberty-loving citizen of a democracy, I will defend to the death Don Imus’s free-speech right to use expressions like “nappy-headed ho’s” in whatever constitutionally-protected way he chooses.

But you really don’t get it. When he says that, your impulse is still to go running around looking for a nanny to make the bad man stop saying those things (and, more importantly, having people be able to listen to it).

But I don’t give a steaming crap about his non-existent “right” to continue selling his free speech for money when he’s no longer profitable to his employers, because he opened his trash-talking yap once too often and made too many customers and potential customers despise his clueless ass.

But that isn’t what happened. The customers went after his employment and threatened companies for sponsoring speech they don’t like, not after his listeners. Theres nothing respectable about that. That’s perfectly legal, but why should anyone who values free speech, who REALLY values it as an actual value rather than just as an arbitrary principle, respect that?

I don’t like the fact that Bill O’Reily has tons of listeners. But tough nuts to me. I think he’s a hateful evil asshole. But me wanting to knock him off the air is nothing more than sour grapes.

[DMC]

@Fiveyearlurker

Uh huh. And this was, again “100% economic”.

So you do support his firing?

[Fiveyearlurker]

@DMC

So you do support his firing?

I understand it from a business perspective. Absolutely. When have I said otherwise? They did a risk/benefit analysis. Period. From a pure business perspecitive they made the right move.

I don’t support it, and don’t understand what that has to do with growing a national economy.

[Caridwen]

The free market is: if enough people want to listen to Imus, then there is a market for it, and he gets a show.

If you don’t like what he has to say, then well, don’t listen. If you have something to say you think is better… well… see if you can get enough people to listen to you so that it’s profitable enough for someone to sponsor you.

Free market also means if you don’t like something you have the right to complain, protest, write letters. That’s how democracy works.

[Kimstu]

A boycott is nothing more than a group of consumers saying “I don’t like your product, I won’t buy your product, and I won’t support any sponsor who funds the production and sale of your product”.

I don’t see what’s “dickholish” in any way about that, or anti-democratic either. It’s simply consumers exercising their power of consumer choice in a market where speech is treated as a commodity.

If you don’t like speech being treated as a commodity and thus subjected to the power of consumer preference—both pro and anti—then by all means, start advocating more public forums for speech that isn’t controlled by the marketplace.

But if you want speech to be a market commodity, then don’t whine when the market makes decisions about it that you don’t like.

@Fiveyearlurker

From a pure business perspective they made the right move.

And since speech is a business in this case, then what other perspective do you imagine they’re supposed to apply to it?

@Fiveyearlurker

Me and some buddies could easily ruin a local restaurant by standing outside telling potential patrons that the food in there is awful. We could go online and pepper every website with bad reviews. We could ruin them. It wouldn’t matter if it were true or not.

This analogy is still irrelevant to the Imus situation, though, because there’s no question whether the charge that Imus called a group of college basketball players “nappy-headed ho’s” is true or not. It is true, and everybody knows it. The market is evaluating Imus based not on arbitrary unverified rumors, but on incontrovertible acknowledged fact.

(And forgive me if I’m rather skeptical that you and your buddies could really ruin an established local restaurant just by accosting patrons in the doorway with unsolicited and unsupported negative opinions about the food. Personally, I’d be much more inclined to conclude that you were a revengeful bunch of former employees of the restaurant who got fired for dipping into the till and spitting on the entrees, and were trying to get back at your ex-boss.)

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Caridwen

Free market also means if you don’t like something you have the right to complain, protest, write letters. That’s how democracy works.

All of those things are fine. No problem with any of them.

Let’s put it this way. I’m sure there’s more than a few people here who now think I’m an asshole. You can:

1. Start a Pit thread about me
2. Continue to debate me in this thread
3. Find any thread I post in and link to this thread, so that others who aren’t reading it can see what I’ve said and then they can hate me too (some might agree and like me).

What would make you a coward would be to find out who I am, call my employer and tell her that there’s this internet thread where I mentioned used the words “hanging” “niggers” “shooting” and “kikes” in the same sentence so that she would fire me so that I couldn’t pay for my internet connection so that you would never have to deal with me.

It’s probably legal. But you’d be a coward.

[DMC]

@Fiveyearlurker

I understand it from a business perspective. Absolutely. When have I said otherwise? They did a risk/benefit analysis. Period. From a pure business perspecitive they made the right move.

I don’t support it, and don’t understand what that has to do with growing a national economy.

I didn’t ask you if you supported it. I asked you if you supported their right to do so. You said no.