You the same you with the face who wrote
?
As I said in that forum, then Bushco and conservative advertisers’ getting Disney to not distribute Farenheit 911 (even if they had scared others from picking it up too) was not and wouldn’t have been censorship either. Just market pressures.
Nope. Its censorship at work, just in a way that we don’t normally think of it.
As far as I can tell, his point is that if you google “white inventors” you get no actual hits on that first page relating to white inventors, but you do get two hits about black inventors. I tried googling “black inventors” also, and a full page of hits about black inventors came up. So his point seems to be that we make an extra effort to recognize black inventors, but not white inventors. I guess.
This is a pretty pointless argument because being white is the status quo in America, and a white inventor isn’t going to be defined as a “white inventor” by his race the same way a black inventor would. If you want a bunch of pages about white inventors, google “inventor.” The default inventor is white - the “black inventor” is the noteworthy exception, and that’s why there are more pages about them specifically. So I’ve come to the conclusion that this whole thing about googling white inventors is a bit of rhetorical misdirection.
Argent, and for kicks I just did that. Third page until you get to anything about Black inventors and not another until the sixth with George Washington Carver coming up.
True 'nuff. White is the default setting, doesn’t need to be said. If said it is to set the stage to discuss another population, such as Blacks.
I was simply flipping danceswithcats’ position back on him. He expressed a problem with people complaining about Imus. But it’s inconsistent to say that Imus should be able to say what he wants, but offended people need to just shut up and change the channel. Especially if you want to frame this as a freedom of speech issue. Both sides can say what they want. Imus included. That doesn’t mean his words carry no consequence, though.
Someone of his stature should expect to lose his job when his words cross the line. And that’s really all there is to it.
So if you go to a restaurant and a waiter calls you a nigger jew fag, is his subsequent firing censorship?
Is “nappy headed ho” on par with “nigger” or “fag”? Does it qualify as hate speech?
He can call me Jew all he wants. And short. They are accurate descriptors.
But to answer the spirit of the question, if a waiter called a customer a “nappy headed ho” his dismisssal would be justifiable as well … but situation is not comparable. More analogous would be a “Gentleman’s Club” (yeah I know, no one who goes there is likely to be a gentleman) in which a dancer shakes provocatively and in a way that some who do not go there would find sexually demeaning … and very stimulating. Are those people ethically correct to pressure the club to fire the woman for being too stimulating? Is the club being reasonable to fire her to satisfy the fundamentalist protests when she was hired to do exactly that, just not quite so provocatively?
Does it matter if it meets some textbook definition of hate speech?
I have a feeling if a waiter called you “Jew” in lieu of your name or “sir”, you would find it offensive. To act otherwise is to be disingenuous. Context always matters.
In this situation, it’s not unethical for them to complain. Just really stupid. If you go to a strip club, then stripping is on the menu. This is not comparable to Imus at all. If I turn on MSNBC, I expect to get the news, since that network markets itself as a purveyor of such. I don’t expect to hear sexist, racist, and gratuitously mean-spirited crapola. Sexism and racist speech does not go hand in hand with the news.
Now sure, I can choose not to tune in. But there’s nothing ethically objectionable about me talking a more active role in expressing my displeasure to a network who values my continued patronage. Whether they choose to listen to my complaint is on them.
YWTF, do you believe we should be allowed to stop the nazis from marching on Skokie?
No offense, but I don’t understand the analogy.
This was simply a case of Imus being Imus and insulting the wrong group of people. Advertisers wanted to distance themselves from controversary and pulled out. The station faced losing a great deal of money as well as possible fines.
Imus need to blame Imus. And he did blame himself. He didn’t blame Al Sharpton, Jesse, rappers because they didn’t have anything to do with him being fired. He knew the score like anyone does that has an employer. Now he can stay home with his young wife and sell green products or write a book.
Whether what he said was hate speech is irrelevant. If he went on the show every day and made fart noises and it grossed out people enough that they wrote to the advertisers and it cost the station money, it’d be the same thing. If he owned the station and didn’t violate any guidelines from the FCC he’s still be on the air.
I believe nazis should speak.
I do too. I think it’s fine if the networks fire Imus for financial reasons, but since he didn’t break any FCC rules, I think it’s wrong for them to say they fired him because they didn’t like his speech (which they have condoned for all these years). The way it played out amounts to censorship. I think it’s wrong for the people to call for him to be fired, as well.
There is a fine, but important distinction between saying “we forbid you to speak like that” (which is what they did) and the people simply turning the show off and letting nature take its course.
The problem with that passive approach is that there a lot of sexist, racist assholes out there who think there’s nothing more delightful than calling college girls “nappy-headed hos” and the like. They are who keep the shock jocks in business. To kowtow to their perverse delights, all because its profitable, is not a position I can get behind.
Just because a show attracts an audience doesn’t mean it can do no wrong and should be allowed to exist. The impression I keep getting is that people think that just because something is on TV, no one has the right to express dissatisfication with it by means other than passively looking away. I don’t understand this position.
I absolutely agree with you. The networks have two choices; either don’t hire the asshole to begin with, or tolerate him until the kitchen gets too hot, and fire him because he’s no longer profitable, and be up front about it. Had this particular incident not happened, he’d have been right up to the line, every day, and the networks would have continued to praise him and reward him with more and more money. They’re NOT outraged. They’ve allowed it to go on for decades. They’re the ones we should be angry with. They’re the 'ho’s in this story.
I have no problem with expressing dissatisfaction with him. That’s different from asking that he be silenced. I don’t believe its right to demand that unpopular speech be squelched.
I’m not for censorship, but I’m a little tired of racism/sexism/bigotry to be acceptable in mainstream media.
Here are some of Bill O’Reilly’s comments.
“the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries.”
“We’d save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes–they’re not going to do what they’re doing now, all right, so people aren’t going to die in the desert.”
I posted accidently and can’t edit- Here’s the link for some of the O’Reilly comments.
Rush told a black caller to take the bone out of his nose and call back. I could go on and on about what Ann Coulter says.
I think most people are fed up with it. Maybe this will get people to start censoring themselves. It shouldn’t be acceptable to make sexist or racist remarks.
“Nappy hair” is OK to use if you are black, but whites may not use it without appearing racist. And it goes without saying that “ho” is the H-word, but once again it is much worse when used by white people.
LOL!!
Again, for the record. It PROVES that we as a nation of sheeple have permitted the you-know-whos in the media to create an environment that is way too obsequious towards one race at the cost of shafting another race! Gezz!
By the way, why do you suppose it is that none of those self-appointed pontificators of racial and social justice in the national media made an issue out of the fact that Bill and Melinda Gates excluded Caucasian males from taking part in their foundation’s billion-dollar give away for disadvantaged students? (Once again, more proof that this country is being conditioned to spit on one particular race/group.)
As far as the guy in the cowboy hat goes … it’s now about a larger picture. Is this country going to have free speech, or are we going to permit certain elements to decide what can and cannot be said?
If everyone was like me, there wouldn’t much of a problem because he wouldn’t be on the radio due to the fact that I wouldn’t give him two seconds of my time. I don’t like people like him no matter what race they are. The comments he made about those beautiful young ladies were flat-out ugly, unfair and wrong! :mad:
But I still don’t want speech police, no sir!
As a white guy, I really don’t feel shafted by what happened to Imus.
I refere you to the larger picture, my friend.
I for one am glad that the blame has finally shifted to where it really belongs. The Jews.
(I feel the need to note, in this environment, that the above is not meant seriously)
Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself for taking a shot like that?