Why do you keep saying "accountability" as the person is question is trashed publicly, apologizes, is suspended, and is losing advertisers? I mean, where does this "accountability" you keep mentioning begin?
and needs to be called out...and if his employer still feels they want to employ him fine.
No, I'm not. I have no interest in punishing you. I'm simply trying to demostrate the problems with randomly fining and censoring people as if there are no consequences.
Why isn't your conviction that strong for these media people? Maybe I would not have thought of these examples if the door hadn't be open by them. So what is wrong with fines and tapping into airtime for repeated offenses?
What is wrong is that these aren't offenses. If I throw a rock at you and it hits you, that's an offense. However, if I write "nigger" on a rock, it's up to you to get offended by that or not. Understand?
and needs to be called out...and if his employer still feels they want to employ him fine.
Is he not being "called out"???? I'm glad you consider it "fine" that an employer and employee are allowed to actually make choices without your approval.
No, I'm not. I have no interest in punishing you. I'm simply trying to demostrate the problems with randomly fining and censoring people as if there are no consequences.
What is wrong is that these aren't offenses. If I throw a rock at you and it hits you, that's an offense. However, if I write "nigger" on a rock, it's up to you to get offended by that or not. Understand?
And if you yell fire at a movie theater - It is up to the crowd exiting small doors to do so in an orderly fashion. When they get trampled, you can cry "freedom of speech" and "it was a joke"
Just because the connection is not one that you would make does not mean it is not there.
And if you yell fire at a movie theater - It is up to the crowd exiting small doors to do so in an orderly fashion. When they get trampled, you can cry "freedom of speech" and "it was a joke"
Just because the connection is not one that you would make does not mean it is not there.
Calling someone a happy-headed ho and yelling fire in a crowded thearter, possibly insiting panic, are two totally different things.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Jerry: You see, Elaine, the key to eating a black and white cookie is that you wanna get some black and some white in each bite. Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate. And yet still somehow racial harmony eludes us. If people would only look to the cookie, all our problems would be solved.
And if you yell fire at a movie theater - It is up to the crowd exiting small doors to do so in an orderly fashion. When they get trampled, you can cry "freedom of speech" and "it was a joke"
Huh? If you yell fire at a movie theater, I'm going to look for the fire or the smoke before I start trampling people. As a matter of fact, I don't see a pressing need to trample anyone. Regardless, you can't even show me a case of someone being trampled because of Don Imus's stupid statement.
Just because the connection is not one that you would make does not mean it is not there.
It isn't there. That's the problem with your silly logic. And aren't you a guy who has called me names? Where's your belief in the offensive power of words there? If I go kill someone, can I just blame it on your words? Where's your "accountability", Abuskedti?
Jerry: You see, Elaine, the key to eating a black and white cookie is that you wanna get some black and some white in each bite. Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate. And yet still somehow racial harmony eludes us. If people would only look to the cookie, all our problems would be solved.
Should I feel guilty for preferring to dunk in regular milk over chocolate milk? Why can't we all just live the Oreo dream like Mr Christie set out for us?
it's already there spelled out for us in the cookies people...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Should I feel guilty for preferring to dunk in regular milk over chocolate milk? Why can't we all just live the Oreo dream like Mr Christie set out for us?
it's already there spelled out for us in the cookies people...
No, I'm not. I have no interest in punishing you. I'm simply trying to demostrate the problems with randomly fining and censoring people as if there are no consequences.
What is wrong is that these aren't offenses. If I throw a rock at you and it hits you, that's an offense. However, if I write "nigger" on a rock, it's up to you to get offended by that or not. Understand?
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it misses, do you really expect a person to pick up the rock and read it.
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it does. I don't think that they would be offended, because again I don't think they would take the time to "read" the rock before throwing it back at you.
Say if you through a rock with the word nigger on it and it hit me and I read the rock should I forgive because it wasn't meant for me. No, I'd fuckin sue your ass after having you arrested for attacking me.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it misses, do you really expect a person to pick up the rock and read it.
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it does. I don't think that they would be offended, because again I don't think they would take the time to "read" the rock before throwing it back at you.
Say if you through a rock with the word nigger on it and it hit me and I read the rock should I forgive because it wasn't meant for me. No, I'd fuckin sue your ass after having you arrested for attacking me.
i dont think your reading comprehension skills are up to speed on this one chief.
What is wrong is that these aren't offenses. If I throw a rock at you and it hits you, that's an offense. However, if I write "nigger" on a rock, it's up to you to get offended by that or not. Understand?
If you somehow wrote it on billboards all over the country perhaps a few people may get offended. Perhaps they would even write "farfromglorified is a racist" on a bunch of billboards for everyone to see also.
But then a bunch of people would be on this board arguing that you should have been able to do it without any response.
If you somehow wrote it on billboards all over the country perhaps a few people may get offended. Perhaps they would even write "farfromglorified is a racist" on a bunch of billboards for everyone to see also.
But then a bunch of people would be on this board arguing that you should have been able to do it without any response.
I think people should be able to write "farfromglorified is a racist" on any billboard they choose. What do I care what people write on billboards?
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it misses, do you really expect a person to pick up the rock and read it.
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it does. I don't think that they would be offended, because again I don't think they would take the time to "read" the rock before throwing it back at you.
Say if you through a rock with the word nigger on it and it hit me and I read the rock should I forgive because it wasn't meant for me. No, I'd fuckin sue your ass after having you arrested for attacking me.
I need to start tailoring my analogies to my audience......
My point was that words are not violence. Words cannot force you to do anything. Words require your interpretation. In other words, as a listener you must give meaning to the words you hear. And if you give an offensive meaning to a word, that's on you, not on the speaker.
I thought you were arguing that Imus shouldn't be taking the heat he is for this.
Depends on what you mean. I don't think Imus should be forcibly taken off air unless his employer wants him to be. I don't think Imus should be fined. I don't think Imus should be lynched. However, if people want to take issue with his words, want to remove their advertising money from his show, want to stop listening to his program, or want to call him a rascist curmudgeon, I couldn't care less.
I was using the billboard as an analogy for a wide audience like TV and radio, rather than your rock which only a few people would probably see
What about it? What does it matter how many people see something?
Honestly I could care less what you write on your rocks though. I'm pretty sure I'll never run into one of them anyway.
Probably not. And even if you did, you could just ignore it or not be offended by it.
the problem is women's basketball. it's about as exciting as watching paint dry, only less practical.
In the australian women's basketball league they used to wear skin tight body suits. I quite enjoyed watching it on a sunday arvo if I had nothing better to do, even if most of them are freakishly tall and a bit buff looking for my taste. I think the Australian team even wore them at the 2000 olympics in Sydney. They kicked arse too if I remember correctly. The only other women's team that wore suits like that was Brazil.
Thanks to the stupid feminists (probably) they now play in baggy shorts and singlets, just like the men. Women's basketball in Australia has now gone from a sport hardly anyone cared about to a sport that absolutely nobody cares about. . .
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
If calling the Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos" was the first deplorable and offensive utterance out of shock jock Don Imus's mouth, there probably wouldn't be a national firestorm over his reprehensible characterization. If this was some rare event, then there wouldn't be organizations lining up to demand he be fired. If this was the first time, or second, or 10th, probably Imus wouldn't have been suspended for two weeks from his syndicated radio show, which is simulcast on MSNBC.
But there's nothing rare about Imus's vile attacks. This is what he does as a matter of course. Imus and his studio cohorts have painted black people as convicts and muggers and worst of all, apes. Not only do they find it funny, they expect everybody else will as well.
Sid Rosenberg, whom Imus once fired, then rehired, said one morning in 2001 that Serena and Venus Williams would be better off posing in National Geographic than Playboy. He knew he was saying Serena and Venus are closer to wild animals than women.
Please don't tell me it's not fair to hold Imus accountable for that remark and others like it because it didn't come out of his mouth. Imus hires the people who utter this filth and, in fact, wants them to go as far as possible because he believes it insulates him to a certain degree from the harshest criticism.
This is what Imus has done for years and years, and Viacom and NBC Universal pay him a king's ransom to do it. Imus has been questioned about his tactics over the years, and he says repeatedly and dismissively, "Get over it." He certainly isn't the only morning shock jock doing this, but he's the one whose behind is being scorched now and justifiably so.
Imus is the one who said in 1995 of Gwen Ifill, an accomplished, award-winning black journalist of incredible dignity and grace: "Isn't the [New York] Times wonderful. . . . It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."
It's Imus who called William C. Rhoden, the veteran Times sports columnist, "a quota hire." Of course, the work, accomplishments or stature of their targets do not matter to Imus and his stooges. He makes fun of former attorney general Janet Reno's Parkinson's disease.
So "nappy-headed hos" wasn't some weak moment of great exception on the Imus show. In 1997, during a "60 Minutes" profile, Mike Wallace confronted Imus and a former producer who quoted Imus as saying he'd hired a staffer to "do nigger jokes." When I mentioned that earlier this week on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, Imus responded on his show that it simply did not happen -- though I see it in a 2000 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review and had a producer access it through a transcript (also the audio version) on National Public Radio.
Wallace: "You've told Tom Anderson, the producer, in your car coming home that Bernard McGuirk is there to do nigger jokes.'"
Imus: "Well, I've . . . I never use that word."
Wallace: "Tom?"
Tom Anderson: "I'm right here."
Imus: "Did I use that word?
Anderson: "I recall you using that word."
Imus: "Oh, okay, well then I used that word, but I mean . . . of course that was an off-the-record conversation . . ."
Wallace: "The hell it was."
So, you'll excuse me if I dismiss Imus's apology as bogus. He's apologized in the past, told veteran black journalist Clarence Page on the air he would "promise to cease all simian references to black . . . black athletes." That was before Imus went back to the ape references, probably within a week.
Understandably, this has led to a whole lot of folks calling for Imus's head. Personally, I'd rather see Imus have to confront anger, scorn and ridicule every single day. I'd rather see him have to deal with the accusation of being a bigot. I'd rather the criticism come at Imus from every angle, indefinitely, rather than have him slink away to private life.
You'll have to excuse me for not believing a man can utter this brand of filth month after month, then proclaim testily he's not a bigot. Firing, in some ways, would let him off the hook too easily. I'll defend Imus's right to free speech, while pointing out that those of us who find him and his goons contemptible have the exact same right to free speech. I'd rather see Imus squirm in the face of withering criticism than be fired and turn up six months later as some kind of martyr.
I'd rather see him snubbed by Cal Ripken, who refused to go on the air with Imus after his remarks about the Rutgers women. Ripken was supposed to appear on the Imus show yesterday to promote his new book.
Already a little squeamish about appearing on the show, Ripken's decision to tell Imus no became an easy one after the latest spewing. "It was set up by the publisher, but I said no because I don't want anybody to perceive that I condone those comments because I don't," Ripken said in a telephone conversation yesterday. "And if you go on that show, that's exactly what the perception would be."
Ripken said he does not want to be seen as someone wielding a moral compass. But I wonder now how many of these prominent journalists and politicians who use the platform Imus provides (and therefore give him cover) will have as much conviction as Ripken displayed.
Imus, not surprisingly, is trying to frame the discussion in a way that paints him as a good guy who did a stupid thing, which might be okay if he wasn't such a serial offender. Yes, Imus routinely has riveting political discussions, as recently as last fall when he engaged Harold Ford, then running for the U.S. Senate, in conversations about running for office as a young black man in the South, in this case Tennessee. When Imus says he's not unfamiliar with black people, he's telling the truth. He's not some idiot segregationist who seals himself off from black people, which is what makes these episodes even more disgusting.
If you believe the bosses at Viacom and NBC Universal have any guts, and I'm not sure I do, then you might believe the suspension represents a warning of zero tolerance from here on in and that Imus is one more incident from being dumped. And while I'm not agitating for Imus to be fired, I'd certainly raise a toast if it happens. Until then, what Imus has prompted is a necessary national conversation. The meeting with the Rutgers women is necessary -- so is the vigil to stand over him and remind him that even if he doesn't get it, many of us do
What about it? What does it matter how many people see something?
The wider the audience the more people who are likely to become offended apparently. The greater the backlash probably also.
I'm not arguing that people are scarred for life, though I've never really been insulted in front of millions of people so I wouldn't know how it would feel... probably kind of odd I'd imagine. Having people know you only as the 'nappy headed ho' or whatever it was.
I don't know what he was thinking when he said it, but it was a stupid thing to say and the reaction to it should have been obvious.
The wider the audience the more people who are likely to become offended apparently. The greater the backlash probably also.
Not apparently or probably. If Imus's words were spoken in a room of 1,000 white people, few would have cared. If Imus's words were spoken in the Rutgers locker room, almost all would have cared. It's not the size of the audience, it's the specific mindset of the audience.
I'm not arguing that people are scarred for life, though I've never really been insulted in front of millions of people so I wouldn't know how it would feel... probably kind of odd I'd imagine. Having people know you only as the 'nappy headed ho' or whatever it was.
Yeah, this is cool. I'm not trying to say that Imus didn't hurt anyone's feelings or that the Rutgers girls don't have a right to be offended.
I don't know what he was thinking when he said it, but it was a stupid thing to say and the reaction to it should have been obvious.
Comments
and needs to be called out...and if his employer still feels they want to employ him fine.
No, I'm not. I have no interest in punishing you. I'm simply trying to demostrate the problems with randomly fining and censoring people as if there are no consequences.
What is wrong is that these aren't offenses. If I throw a rock at you and it hits you, that's an offense. However, if I write "nigger" on a rock, it's up to you to get offended by that or not. Understand?
Is he not being "called out"???? I'm glad you consider it "fine" that an employer and employee are allowed to actually make choices without your approval.
where would fanch get all his jokes?
And if you yell fire at a movie theater - It is up to the crowd exiting small doors to do so in an orderly fashion. When they get trampled, you can cry "freedom of speech" and "it was a joke"
Just because the connection is not one that you would make does not mean it is not there.
Calling someone a happy-headed ho and yelling fire in a crowded thearter, possibly insiting panic, are two totally different things.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Jerry: You see, Elaine, the key to eating a black and white cookie is that you wanna get some black and some white in each bite. Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate. And yet still somehow racial harmony eludes us. If people would only look to the cookie, all our problems would be solved.
Huh? If you yell fire at a movie theater, I'm going to look for the fire or the smoke before I start trampling people. As a matter of fact, I don't see a pressing need to trample anyone. Regardless, you can't even show me a case of someone being trampled because of Don Imus's stupid statement.
It isn't there. That's the problem with your silly logic. And aren't you a guy who has called me names? Where's your belief in the offensive power of words there? If I go kill someone, can I just blame it on your words? Where's your "accountability", Abuskedti?
Should I feel guilty for preferring to dunk in regular milk over chocolate milk? Why can't we all just live the Oreo dream like Mr Christie set out for us?
it's already there spelled out for us in the cookies people...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
*breaks out aloud in song to "Ebony & Ivory"
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it misses, do you really expect a person to pick up the rock and read it.
If you through a rock at a person, with the intention of hitting them and it does. I don't think that they would be offended, because again I don't think they would take the time to "read" the rock before throwing it back at you.
Say if you through a rock with the word nigger on it and it hit me and I read the rock should I forgive because it wasn't meant for me. No, I'd fuckin sue your ass after having you arrested for attacking me.
i dont think your reading comprehension skills are up to speed on this one chief.
If you somehow wrote it on billboards all over the country perhaps a few people may get offended. Perhaps they would even write "farfromglorified is a racist" on a bunch of billboards for everyone to see also.
But then a bunch of people would be on this board arguing that you should have been able to do it without any response.
I think people should be able to write "farfromglorified is a racist" on any billboard they choose. What do I care what people write on billboards?
I need to start tailoring my analogies to my audience......
My point was that words are not violence. Words cannot force you to do anything. Words require your interpretation. In other words, as a listener you must give meaning to the words you hear. And if you give an offensive meaning to a word, that's on you, not on the speaker.
I thought you were arguing that Imus shouldn't be taking the heat he is for this.
I was using the billboard as an analogy for a wide audience like TV and radio, rather than your rock which only a few people would probably see
Honestly I could care less what you write on your rocks though. I'm pretty sure I'll never run into one of them anyway.
Depends on what you mean. I don't think Imus should be forcibly taken off air unless his employer wants him to be. I don't think Imus should be fined. I don't think Imus should be lynched. However, if people want to take issue with his words, want to remove their advertising money from his show, want to stop listening to his program, or want to call him a rascist curmudgeon, I couldn't care less.
What about it? What does it matter how many people see something?
Probably not. And even if you did, you could just ignore it or not be offended by it.
In the australian women's basketball league they used to wear skin tight body suits. I quite enjoyed watching it on a sunday arvo if I had nothing better to do, even if most of them are freakishly tall and a bit buff looking for my taste. I think the Australian team even wore them at the 2000 olympics in Sydney. They kicked arse too if I remember correctly. The only other women's team that wore suits like that was Brazil.
Thanks to the stupid feminists (probably) they now play in baggy shorts and singlets, just like the men. Women's basketball in Australia has now gone from a sport hardly anyone cared about to a sport that absolutely nobody cares about. . .
-C Addison
By Michael Wilbon
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; E01
If calling the Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos" was the first deplorable and offensive utterance out of shock jock Don Imus's mouth, there probably wouldn't be a national firestorm over his reprehensible characterization. If this was some rare event, then there wouldn't be organizations lining up to demand he be fired. If this was the first time, or second, or 10th, probably Imus wouldn't have been suspended for two weeks from his syndicated radio show, which is simulcast on MSNBC.
But there's nothing rare about Imus's vile attacks. This is what he does as a matter of course. Imus and his studio cohorts have painted black people as convicts and muggers and worst of all, apes. Not only do they find it funny, they expect everybody else will as well.
Sid Rosenberg, whom Imus once fired, then rehired, said one morning in 2001 that Serena and Venus Williams would be better off posing in National Geographic than Playboy. He knew he was saying Serena and Venus are closer to wild animals than women.
Please don't tell me it's not fair to hold Imus accountable for that remark and others like it because it didn't come out of his mouth. Imus hires the people who utter this filth and, in fact, wants them to go as far as possible because he believes it insulates him to a certain degree from the harshest criticism.
This is what Imus has done for years and years, and Viacom and NBC Universal pay him a king's ransom to do it. Imus has been questioned about his tactics over the years, and he says repeatedly and dismissively, "Get over it." He certainly isn't the only morning shock jock doing this, but he's the one whose behind is being scorched now and justifiably so.
Imus is the one who said in 1995 of Gwen Ifill, an accomplished, award-winning black journalist of incredible dignity and grace: "Isn't the [New York] Times wonderful. . . . It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."
It's Imus who called William C. Rhoden, the veteran Times sports columnist, "a quota hire." Of course, the work, accomplishments or stature of their targets do not matter to Imus and his stooges. He makes fun of former attorney general Janet Reno's Parkinson's disease.
So "nappy-headed hos" wasn't some weak moment of great exception on the Imus show. In 1997, during a "60 Minutes" profile, Mike Wallace confronted Imus and a former producer who quoted Imus as saying he'd hired a staffer to "do nigger jokes." When I mentioned that earlier this week on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, Imus responded on his show that it simply did not happen -- though I see it in a 2000 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review and had a producer access it through a transcript (also the audio version) on National Public Radio.
Wallace: "You've told Tom Anderson, the producer, in your car coming home that Bernard McGuirk is there to do nigger jokes.'"
Imus: "Well, I've . . . I never use that word."
Wallace: "Tom?"
Tom Anderson: "I'm right here."
Imus: "Did I use that word?
Anderson: "I recall you using that word."
Imus: "Oh, okay, well then I used that word, but I mean . . . of course that was an off-the-record conversation . . ."
Wallace: "The hell it was."
So, you'll excuse me if I dismiss Imus's apology as bogus. He's apologized in the past, told veteran black journalist Clarence Page on the air he would "promise to cease all simian references to black . . . black athletes." That was before Imus went back to the ape references, probably within a week.
Understandably, this has led to a whole lot of folks calling for Imus's head. Personally, I'd rather see Imus have to confront anger, scorn and ridicule every single day. I'd rather see him have to deal with the accusation of being a bigot. I'd rather the criticism come at Imus from every angle, indefinitely, rather than have him slink away to private life.
You'll have to excuse me for not believing a man can utter this brand of filth month after month, then proclaim testily he's not a bigot. Firing, in some ways, would let him off the hook too easily. I'll defend Imus's right to free speech, while pointing out that those of us who find him and his goons contemptible have the exact same right to free speech. I'd rather see Imus squirm in the face of withering criticism than be fired and turn up six months later as some kind of martyr.
I'd rather see him snubbed by Cal Ripken, who refused to go on the air with Imus after his remarks about the Rutgers women. Ripken was supposed to appear on the Imus show yesterday to promote his new book.
Already a little squeamish about appearing on the show, Ripken's decision to tell Imus no became an easy one after the latest spewing. "It was set up by the publisher, but I said no because I don't want anybody to perceive that I condone those comments because I don't," Ripken said in a telephone conversation yesterday. "And if you go on that show, that's exactly what the perception would be."
Ripken said he does not want to be seen as someone wielding a moral compass. But I wonder now how many of these prominent journalists and politicians who use the platform Imus provides (and therefore give him cover) will have as much conviction as Ripken displayed.
Imus, not surprisingly, is trying to frame the discussion in a way that paints him as a good guy who did a stupid thing, which might be okay if he wasn't such a serial offender. Yes, Imus routinely has riveting political discussions, as recently as last fall when he engaged Harold Ford, then running for the U.S. Senate, in conversations about running for office as a young black man in the South, in this case Tennessee. When Imus says he's not unfamiliar with black people, he's telling the truth. He's not some idiot segregationist who seals himself off from black people, which is what makes these episodes even more disgusting.
If you believe the bosses at Viacom and NBC Universal have any guts, and I'm not sure I do, then you might believe the suspension represents a warning of zero tolerance from here on in and that Imus is one more incident from being dumped. And while I'm not agitating for Imus to be fired, I'd certainly raise a toast if it happens. Until then, what Imus has prompted is a necessary national conversation. The meeting with the Rutgers women is necessary -- so is the vigil to stand over him and remind him that even if he doesn't get it, many of us do
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001891_pf.html
The wider the audience the more people who are likely to become offended apparently. The greater the backlash probably also.
I'm not arguing that people are scarred for life, though I've never really been insulted in front of millions of people so I wouldn't know how it would feel... probably kind of odd I'd imagine. Having people know you only as the 'nappy headed ho' or whatever it was.
I don't know what he was thinking when he said it, but it was a stupid thing to say and the reaction to it should have been obvious.
Not apparently or probably. If Imus's words were spoken in a room of 1,000 white people, few would have cared. If Imus's words were spoken in the Rutgers locker room, almost all would have cared. It's not the size of the audience, it's the specific mindset of the audience.
Yeah, this is cool. I'm not trying to say that Imus didn't hurt anyone's feelings or that the Rutgers girls don't have a right to be offended.
He probably wasn't thinking.