[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Can we exclude jazz from that statement? I agree that many people prefer the whitewashed version, but the Black jazz geniuses are honored, and respected, and their music played with all it’s force and power.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, now they are. But go back and look at what white people were saying about it when it was a new artform.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Sure, now they are. But go back and look at what white people were saying about it when it was a new artform.
[/QUOTE]
For reals. Coltrane was the Snoop Dog of his day.
[QUOTE=Apos]
Good grief. Are you really trying this hard to not see a distinction between trying to get messages heard and trying to prevent messages from being heard?
[/quote]
If Al Sharpton was bombing MSNBC and CBS and trying to cut out Imus’s tongue, then you could say he was trying to prevent messages from being heard. But he didn’t do any of these things.
Imus’s “voice” is not being prevented in any way. You really make your argument sound shrill and hysterical by taking this absurd position.
But the public airwaves have ALWAYS has standards. They have NEVER been free. Sharpton did not invent censorship, so if you have a problem with what he’s advocating, you’re a little late to the party.
I don’t get how Imus is an example of “free exchange of ideas”. He’s just one guy with a mic. He can screen who he gets to talk to, who he gets to interview. He can cut off whoever he wants. That’s not free. That’s a dictatorship.
I can’t get my own radio show from CBS. Does that mean they don’t value free speech and the free exchange of ideas?
(I love it how all of a sudden, these conservative, “libertarian” types are up in arms about the lost of free speech. Over the past couple of decades, mega-conglomerates have been turning the airwaves into a resource controlled by only a few entities–the Clear Channelization of our media. The fact that local-owned, independent radio stations are an endangered species is more worrisome to me than the firing of some fat-pocketed shock jock.)
I can support someone’s right to say whatever the want without giving them money. If I discover the local homophobe is selling lemonade on his front porch, I’m not impinging on his First Amendment rights by avoiding his stand and telling others to avoid his stand. By saying that I shouldn’t do that (because I’ll hurt the poor thing), you’re saying that his free speech is more important than mine.
Saying GOD HATES FAGS is 100% cool. Me tellling someone to avoid that person and the people supporting that person is 100% bad. Right.
I’d like you to find evidence of Sharpton taking anything away from anyone, or him punishing Imus. I don’t think you can.
yeah Contra, I won’t back down from the statement. Every jazz great I know of prominence, from Parker to Coltrane to Davis (I am a bebop fan more than any other form) caught grief in the media for their drug use and hedonistic lifestyles. Now they’re dead and buried, we can give them the thumbs up.
And I would say that jazz has lost its primarily African-American fan base. The only people I know who listen to jazz today are intellectuals. Mostly White intellectuals, which is great, because these cats know and love the music - but I think a lot of Black folks nowadays know very little about jazz’s roots.
[QUOTE=monstro]
I’d like you to find evidence of Sharpton taking anything away from anyone, or him punishing Imus. I don’t think you can.
[/QUOTE]
Well there’s this event of a protest and boycott gone really, really, wrong which was basically a boycott against a store owner who had the nerve to be Jewish.
Do you think that maybe when advertisers hear the word “boycott” come out of his mouth, this little episode might possibly have a little say in how they react.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Well there’s this event of a protest and boycott gone really, really, wrong which was basically a boycott against a store owner who had the nerve to be Jewish.
Do you think that maybe when advertisers hear the word “boycott” come out of his mouth, this little episode might possibly have a little say in how they react.
[/QUOTE]
All boycotts turn into murderous riots, and that’s why MSNBC and CBS fired Imus. They were afraid for their lives, poor guys.
I’m starting to think RTFirefly’s link isn’t just idle speculation.
[QUOTE=monstro]
I wouldn’t buy talcum powder from anyone who advocates killing gays…
[/quote]
Then I want to help you out monstro Do you fill up your vehicle at Exxon, or Shell ? Get your home heating oil from them? Did you know that they deal and purchase oil with the Saudi Arabian state oil company called Aramco?
Here’s what Wikipedia say about Saudi Arabia
It could be though I don’t know(after all, I’m not American), that every pump in the States supplies Saudi oil, but at least you should know now who are the clear culprits. Enjoy your ride 
By the way, if a movement could be established to boycott Aramco and their partners, I’ll join in. After all we have lots of oil in Canada and I don’t mind paying a premium for the cause of gays and women.
Thanks for the heads-up, The Flying Dutchman. I’m not the most ethical person, but I do try to be conscientious in my consumerism.
[QUOTE=monstro]
All boycotts turn into murderous riots, and that’s why MSNBC and CBS fired Imus. They were afraid for their lives, poor guys.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. But one that was started by the particular guy who was starting this one did. You really think that no one considered this when giving in to him?
Quote from Sharpton at the time:
“We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton said.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Nope. But one that was started by the particular guy who was starting this one did. You really think that no one considered this when giving in to him?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’m pretty sure CBS wasn’t afraid Sharpton was going to burn down their studios if they didn’t fire Imus.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Miller]
Yeah, I’m pretty sure CBS wasn’t afraid Sharpton was going to burn down their studios if they didn’t fire Imus.
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I think most people tend to be a bit concerned when a guy once used a racially fueled boycott to whip people into enough of a frenzy that it ended in a multiple homicide, when they hear him uttering the word “boycott” in another racially fueled situation.
Yeah, I think most people tend to have a one strike your out policy on boycotts leading to murder.
To his credit, he did at least apologize for the “white interloper” part.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Nope. But one that was started by the particular guy who was starting this one did. You really think that no one considered this when giving in to him?
[/QUOTE]
Where are you getting the idea that Sharpton started this one?
There were alreeady a number of people grumbling (and several smaller sponsors jumping ship) within two days of the program. Then Imus chose to go to Sharpton. Now, Sharpton would not let Imus off the hook–whether because Imus was too weaselly in his apology or because Sharpton had his own agenda, no one has provided evidence for either claim–but Sharpton did not start the withdrawl of sponsors and Sharpton was handed a perfect opportunity to get himself quoted due to the actions of Imus.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
I think most people tend to be a bit concerned when a guy once used a racially fueled boycott to whip people into enough of a frenzy that it ended in a multiple homicide, when they hear him uttering the word “boycott” in another racially fueled situation.
Yeah, I think most people tend to have a one strike your out policy on boycotts leading to murder.
To his credit, he did at least apologize for the “white interloper” part.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, i have a “one strike you’re out” policy on murder.
If Sharpton calls for a boycott, and some zealot gets it into his head that a boycott means shooting and arson resulting in the death of himself and seven other people, then the person to blame is the zealot, not Sharpton.
Your implication that Sharpton is somehow responsible for those deaths is ridiculous.
I’m not talking about Fiveyearlurker because I don’t know anything about his politics, but most of the conservative boards were the first people to call for Bill Maher to be fired, and the Dixie Chicks to be boycotted. Remember the french fry/freedom fry boycott?
The only time they seem to have a problem with people calling for a boycott is when it’s done by those whiny black people. :rolleyes:
Letter writing, and calls for boycotts to raise public awareness have been going on forever in this country. This is nothing new and environmental groups have been pretty successful using this strategy. When the called for boycotting tuna companies that didn’t have dolphin-free tuna it raised a lot of awareness.
The Grape boycott in the 60’s brought a lot of awareness to the plight of migrant workers.
http://library.thinkquest.org/26504/History.html
Check out the WWF site, it’s ongoing. Why is this a bad thing?
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Actually, i have a “one strike you’re out” policy on murder.
If Sharpton calls for a boycott, and some zealot gets it into his head that a boycott means shooting and arson resulting in the death of himself and seven other people, then the person to blame is the zealot, not Sharpton.
Your implication that Sharpton is somehow responsible for those deaths is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
I had intended not to post in this thread anymore because people seem not to be reading my posts, evidenced by non-responses to direct questions and/or reposting the exact information I had posted previously.
However, I must correct something **Lurker ** has repeated several times.
He has conflated two separate incident involving Sharpton and I think, because they involved Sharpton, they were blown out of proportion in the first place.
While Sharpton *was * involved in the calls for justice in the days after the car accident, I want you to answer me this: where has it been conclusively proven that Sharpton explicitly called for people to violently riot and/or to kill anyone? You can’t do it. But *he must have * because of the Tawana Brawley incident.
Again, I ask you: where has it been conclusively proven that Sharpton explicitly called for people to violently riot and/or to kill anyone? You still can’t. Ahhh, Tawana Brawley. So he must have.
And this:
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
“We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton said.
[/QUOTE]
cannot be, in any way interpreted (whichever incident it’s connected to) as a call to riot and murder.
By the way, I’m on record on the Dope as saying he did a lot of very wrong things in the Brawley case. I’m also not quite sure that, while he gets involved in many worthwhile causes, he’s not in it for Sharpton, either.
All of this is on wikipedia for all of you who have, up to now, believed in its powers to prove anything and everything under the sun.
I am not going to repost the same comments in multiple threads and I think that the points have been made on each side several times over, so I want to just make one little observation. Fiveyearlurker commented that maybe advertisers are afraid that this could turn into a boycott that could become violent, and that they may be more concerned about that because Sharpton has been involved in such events before. He did not say that Sharpton called for the violence. He did not say that Sharpton desired that outcome. He did say that when Sharpton got involved before it happened, that Sharpton’s stylistic was partly to blame even if he did not directly call for violence or desire it, and that such might give a company pause even it is just a marker of such a risk.
Responding to that statement as if he said that “all” boycotts turn violent, or that he claimed that Sharpton was directly causative of the events is unfair. Debate what he actualy said.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Fiveyearlurker commented that maybe advertisers are afraid that this could turn into a boycott that could become violent, and that they may be more concerned about that because Sharpton has been involved in such events before.
[/QUOTE]
And that would be ridiculous. There’s been no indication that the level of public outrage over this is anywhere close to violence.
The implication always seems to be that protesting black people = violence just waiting to happen. Really, really offensive shit. I’m getting sick of it.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
I am not going to repost the same comments in multiple threads and I think that the points have been made on each side several times over, so I want to just make one little observation. Fiveyearlurker commented that maybe advertisers are afraid that this could turn into a boycott that could become violent, and that they may be more concerned about that because Sharpton has been involved in such events before. He did not say that Sharpton called for the violence. He did not say that Sharpton desired that outcome. He did say that when Sharpton got involved before it happened, that Sharpton’s stylistic was partly to blame even if he did not directly call for violence or desire it, and that such might give a company pause even it is just a marker of such a risk.
Responding to that statement as if he said that “all” boycotts turn violent, or that he claimed that Sharpton was directly causative of the events is unfair. Debate what Lurker actually said.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve read every post in this thread and Monstro’s other thread re: Imus, and I believe he, and others, have said and implied it at every turn. Unfortunately, I’m at the library and my allotted time is running out, but tomorrow I will search for and return with direct quotes that support my belief.
However, in the meantime, if he has not said such a thing and/or I have, further, drawn the incorrect inference from the sum total of his posts, I’d like to ask him to respond. Either to these current assertions, or to the questions in the post just previous to yours.
Anyone who would like to present evidence condemning Sharpton for the specific actions I mention in that post may respond as well. If no one does, am I to assume that those who have characterized Sharpton’s past thusly, are saying they have no evidence?
Excuse, now; I have to go look up some pr0n.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
And that would be ridiculous. There’s been no indication that the level of public outrage over this is anywhere close to violence.
The implication always seems to be that protesting black people = violence just waiting to happen. Really, really offensive shit. I’m getting sick of it.
[/QUOTE]
Well ywtf you are entitled to be offended whenever you want to be and read whatever implication you want from what has been said whether that was implied or not. But be real. In the modern America era violent riots have fairly often involved a predominately Black crowd and there have been a few. Mind you that wasn’t the case in the past. For most of American history Blacks were the subject of voilent riots by Whites. But the modern era is marked by violent riots by Blacks. And Sharpton has a track record of inflaming situations whether such was his intent or not. To not have any concern that a protest could turn ugly would be to stupidly ignore the last 40 years.
Now I agree that there really was no indication that this was the kind of issue to trigger violence, it was not Rodney King and wasn’t police brutality ignored, but who knows what level of risk aversion some executive may have? Maybe enough that it played a factor in the decision process? I personally don’t think so, but I wouldn’t find such a possibility impossible to consider.
5-4 well I haven’t read them all, just the last one that’s been responded to. If I missed others then I am sorry and will stand corrected. If such is the case then eviscerate away.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
The implication always seems to be that protesting black people = violence just waiting to happen. Really, really offensive shit. I’m getting sick of it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, but – but – but – WATTS!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Damn colored folk been acting uppity ever since those civil rights outside agitators got 'em all riled up, and look where that’s got us! :mad: :mad: :mad:
You must get damned sick and tired off all those brick walls people keep insisting you beat your head against, huh?