dog says niggar in private conversation and loses career

Jeanie

Cosmo wrote:

...
No...
You can record your private conversation on the phone and release it to the Tabloid Press. No one violated Dogg The Stertiod-Boy's right to privacy... it was his OWN SON who taped the conversation and sold it to the media.
Nothing to do with Freedom Of Speech... everything to do with shitty family matters.

Then is it not the son and the media that violated his privacy then?
That the son was able to bring it to the media and the media then making it public?
I would have thought that in order for it not to be a breach of privacy then both Dogg and the son would have to agree to it being released?

I mean shitty family aside under that scenario no one is safe.

Cosmo

MahoganySouls wrote:

I get what your saying Cosmo, but even Jill would not stoop to making a big issue of the swastika. Does it have negative connotations? Sure. But one of the great things about the recovery of the Jewish nation is that they don't dwell on that one event as being their defining moment. They have moved on. They cherish their lives in the present not the suffering of the past. They might reflect on it from time to time, but they aren't shoving down peoples throats every change they get. They also don't go around talking smack with each other. When was the last time you heard Jill say "get gassed you filthy emaciated baldy" to a fellow Jewish friend?

The point in all of this is, everyone has something from their ancestry that can be percieved as negative. It can drum up painful memories or represent a sore spot in history. But to take issue with every little thing that comes up is only going to make the reprocussions of that event linger longer.

Words and symbols are ineffective unless we give them creedence.

...
See.. the thing is... Jill was born in the 1950s. That was what.. 10... 15 years after the end of WWII? She DID have relatives that were not wealthy enough to get out of Germany... or thought there were places to hide in Europe. Yeah... her grand parents made it to Russia... then, out from there... but, not all of them got out. To her... it isn't ancient history. It is within the reach of her lifetime. I know she's obsessed with Hitler and the War... many of her songs are about Nazis and that crap. Maybe she can't let go... i don't know. i'm seeing her tonight... i'll ask her.
...
and it all depends on where we all stand. The word Nigger has completely different meaning to a young black kid today and a 65 year old man that was forced to eat at seperate tables in his youth. It is not in our place to say what is offensive and what is not.
...
Bottom line... let the black folks fix the problem with the use of the word 'nigger' within their community... white people... don't use the fucking word. Just don't use it and let the brothers and sisters sort it out.

MahoganySouls

Cosmo wrote:

...
See.. the thing is... Jill was born in the 1950s. That was what.. 10... 15 years after the end of WWII? She DID have relatives that were not wealthy enough to get out of Germany... or thought there were places to hide in Europe. Yeah... her grand parents made it to Russia... then, out from there... but, not all of them got out. To her... it isn't ancient history. It is within the reach of her lifetime. I know she's obsessed with Hitler and the War... many of her songs are about Nazis and that crap. Maybe she can't let go... i don't know. i'm seeing her tonight... i'll ask her.
...
and it all depends on where we all stand. The word Nigger has completely different meaning to a young black kid today and a 65 year old man that was forced to eat at seperate tables in his youth. It is not in our place to say what is offensive and what is not.
...
Bottom line... let the black folks fix the problem with the use of the word 'nigger' within their community... white people... don't use the fucking word. Just don't use it and let the brothers and sisters sort it out.

See thats a problem Cosmo. Double standards never work.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

it's not ok. breaking and entering is illegal. but if i called you and you recorded it and sold it, yes, that is perfectly legal. it's a shitty thing to do, but such is life. i said dog's kid is a pussy for doing it. but i also said it sucks for dog and there's nothing he can do about it and his employer had the right to fire him. yes, if you came into my home, recorded me doing something embarrassing and sold it to my coworker to turn over to my employer, they would have every right to fire me and there's not a damn thing i could do. it would be a dick move on your part, but life is a bitch.

So basically we are relying on each other to do the right thing then?
To me, by recording ANYTHING you said or did and then releasing it to the media is breaching your privacy. Something I would not do without your consent and agreement. And by purchasing it from the son and THEN actually acting on it isn't that "poison fruits"? As far as I can see that's only compounding the situation AND rewarding bad behaviour. And by you accepting it as ok, are you not also agreeing that whilst shitty it's to be expected and therefore ok? I'm just asking.

Cosmo

Jeanie wrote:

Then is it not the son and the media that violated his privacy then?
That the son was able to bring it to the media and the media then making it public?
I would have thought that in order for it not to be a breach of privacy then both Dogg and the son would have to agree to it being released?

I mean shitty family aside under that scenario no one is safe.

...
The conversation was between the SON and the Dogg. The SON sold his (the Son's) private conversation to the Tabloid media. Who's conversation is it? The Son or the Dogg?
Not a Freedom of Speech issue... just a loser family and the appeal of money.

Jeanie

MahoganySouls wrote:

I was agreeing with you. I think your grasp of this topic is on the mark

Well then thank you.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

that was a joke. i knew what you meant.



better?

Oh good! It's hard to know which way is up some days with you!
And seeing as I'm doing a first rate job of offending people without actually intending to, I thought I musta put my foot in it again.

Cosmo

MahoganySouls wrote:

See thats a problem Cosmo. Double standards never work.

...
Why not?
Just because black people say nigger... means everyone can? Who made that a rule? Seriously... who really HAS to use the word? Seriously.
...
The only way I can ever... EVER see it being used by some white dude... he's rolling down the street in his six4, smoking endo, sipping on Gin and Juice... laid back, with his mind on his money and his money on his mind and singing to his Snoop Dogg CD. That's about it.

reversedarwinism

that poor nigger

catefrances

Cosmo wrote:

...
Ever wonder... who the fuck invented the flame thrower? I mean, why not just shoot the dude.. right? Who sat at the drawing board and said to himself, "I want him... that guy, way over there... to be on fire"?

well you know the flame thrower has a very long history. tis not a modern invention. though go figure, the incarnation we know was invented by a german

Jeanie

Cosmo wrote:

...
Did you even read what I wrote?
You stated that Swastikas and the word Nigger have no meaning... it is the racism underneath that matters. I simply said... to YOU maybe... but, not to my friend Jewish Jill. To her, that Swastika means a lot.
Then, you went on about us attacking your friend who has health issues and this and that... well, you know what... having health issues is no excuse for saying shit that riles people. I simply pointed out that if it were SoulSinging who said those very same words... I would still be making the same comments... i am not sure you would be. Am i wrong? Tell me.
And drop the whole drama queen schtick... if you were a 16 year old high school girl... it would make sense. I'm a straight shooter... i'm as straight as a... really, really straight thing. It's all out there... other people get it. i don't speak in parables or riddles because i'm way too stupid for that. Yeah... i admit to lacking filters on my thoughts... and can be a bit A.D.D.... but, really... what's so difficult to understand?

Yes I read what you wrote but it seemed that you'd already decided how I think and you were attributing a whole bunch of stuff to me that has nothing to do with me, so I could only asssume that you were baiting me yet again, and that's how you'd prefer us to communicate. If that's the case I don't want to play. So I'm supposed to make allowances for you being a straight shooter and bear in mind that I'm supposedly a drama queen when I speak to you? I'm supposed to make allowances for HOW you view me and HOW you view sick people and then it'll all become clear? This is why I rarely engage you Cosmo.
It's not that I don't agree with much that you say, because more often than not I do, I just feel like what's the point of telling you so when you seemingly couldn't give a fuck what I said anyway? Unless of course I don't agree with you or I dare to question you or attempt to communicate that I'm confused by what you say and then suddenly I'm the worst person in the world. Ok.
I make allowances for SS's way of thinking when I view his posts and as far as I can see he's my friend and we muddle along. I'm quite sure he makes allowances for my posts too. Some days we get each other some days we don't. Maybe if you dropped the whole straight shooter schtick and the preconceived ideas you have of me we'd communicatea whole lot better? Or we could not bother at all. The way I see it, you hold grudges. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

As to your friend I completely understand that a swastika holds meaning and negative connotations for her. I do have the luxury of not having had it impact my life negatively. However, by going after the symbols and language of bad behaviour and not addressing the underlying problems are we not really just paying lip service? Allowing this kind of thing to continue? People do bad things to each other. A swastika, the symbol itself, it did nothing to your friend or her family. Somebody wearing one did. But does that mean I should rid the world of all black t-shirts because my ex had a penchant for wearing them when he beat me up? Just as me calling someone nigger, isn't really doing anything to them either. It's a word. I'm well aware that it's upsetting for a lot of people but wouldn't it be my behaviour and my intention that was really bad and not the word or the symbol?
Now if I dressed myself up in my swastika, shouting nigger and physically launched myself at someone how much of that is my bad behaviour and how much of it is symbolism and language? AND if I did do that wouldn't it be better for people to find out WHY I did it and educate me NOT TO DO IT AGAIN, try to understand what on earth my motivation could be instead of arguing about the importance or meaning of the symbols and language?
We cannot take back the things that humans have done to each other but fiddling around with the set dressing is an exercise in futility if the script and the actors are shit. It won't stop it being a bad play. Only a complete rewrite and maybe a new director, new actors will do that. We need to fix what is broken. Worrying about the small stuff when there are bigger things that just seems stupid to me.

Oh and none of that was an attack on you btw. I'm simply attempting to find some common ground.

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Wow! Really it's not me you need to be worrying about.
If the best you can do in a day is go after someone on a message board because you have "history" :rolleyes: then I feel sorry for you ss.
That's really, really sad.
I mean I could read through all the things you have said in the time I've been here and paint a really negative picture of you if I could be bothered but maybe I'm a bit simpler than that? If I don't like someone I just avoid them. I certainly don't feel the need to chase them round the board. But you know if you feel the need to be everyone's moral compass, go for it!
I've "bought" plenty of your bullshit. I'm an equal opportunity kinda gal.
Nice effort at getting some more ridicule in though.

it's fun to poke the blowhard. he's like that annoyingly pathetic friend who always has a (totally made up) story to top everyone else's in an attempt to add credbility to his bullshit opinion. i get a kick out of seeing what bullshit he'll spew next and responding to it. that is pathetic? you do the same to me.

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, so back to the topic at hand. How is it not a breach of his privacy that the media ENABLED his punk kid AND that they further added to the madness by providing the impetus for him to be fired? I don't think ANYONE regardless of whether they're a public figure or not should be able to be hung drawn and quartered for something they did in their own home. I know it's hard to understand but just because a person works in the media DOESN'T make every facet of their lives open for public scrutiny AND the fact that society seems to think it does is a pretty sad indictment on the society we live in.
Personally I think if we're going to be "outing" people for stuff like this I'd like to know more about the personal lives and the quality of the human being that brings us this drivel in the first place.

nothing they do in their home? murder? molesting children? you're right though. it's not the kid's fault. he shouldn't be accountable for his actions. it's society's fault.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

what really baffles me......

how did this piece of shit fucking felon......who spent time in prison for his part in a murder....

get a fucking television show in the first place????

Hard work, guts, and notoriety. He brought in Luster, the Max Factor heir.

That's what started it.

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

So basically we are relying on each other to do the right thing then?
To me, by recording ANYTHING you said or did and then releasing it to the media is breaching your privacy. Something I would not do without your consent and agreement. And by purchasing it from the son and THEN actually acting on it isn't that "poison fruits"? As far as I can see that's only compounding the situation AND rewarding bad behaviour. And by you accepting it as ok, are you not also agreeing that whilst shitty it's to be expected and therefore ok? I'm just asking.

im saying it sucks for dog, but if he knew his words might cause problems (and he did, that was what the convo was about), he should have been more careful in speaking them.

yes, it's a shitty thing to do. but it's not illegal. and as ive said time and again, people are shitty and you should never expect them to do anything but shitty things to each other.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Intothewild wrote:

Im shocked the PC police haven't shut this thread down yet.

When you fart does it sound like a squeak?

Jeanie

Cosmo wrote:

...
The conversation was between the SON and the Dogg. The SON sold his (the Son's) private conversation to the Tabloid media. Who's conversation is it? The Son or the Dogg?
Not a Freedom of Speech issue... just a loser family and the appeal of money.

Yeah, but doesn't the conversation belong to both of them because they both participated in it? It's a recording of both of them? Therefore shouldn't BOTH parties in the conversation legally have the same rights??? The right to privacy, the right to monetary compensation? I mean isn't that the principle of royalties?
Shouldn't the media outlet that procured the conversation of BOTH people have to have the permission of BOTH people BEFORE they go public? By not procuring DOGS permission they breached his privacy. As did the son for not having DOGS permission before he went to the media.

The trouble I see with it Cosmo, is it sets a nasty precedent. This is not stuff that was in the public domain and although it was maybe only a loser family looking for a bit of cash (who decides that anyway) what's to say a bit of fancy lawyering in a few years won't see the ramifications of it for ordinary people? Not to mention the message it sends to people right now.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

why dont you do the world a favor.....

and just shut the fuck up...........

You really should get your period key looked into...hehe

I thought I was bad.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

it's fun to poke the blowhard. he's like that annoyingly pathetic friend who always has a (totally made up) story to top everyone else's in an attempt to add credbility to his bullshit opinion. i get a kick out of seeing what bullshit he'll spew next and responding to it. that is pathetic? you do the same to me..

Nah, I don't think I do do the same to you ss. And I've thought about it a lot.
Far as I can see if I'm poking fun at you, you know it and I don't think I make it my hobby to disagree with you just so I can have a little nasty fun for the day. I certainly wouldn't kick you when you were down and I don't get off on belittling you. AND I don't dislike you. I might disagree with you sometimes but I think I try my utmost to understand you.
I can't see you chasing someone in a wheelchair down the road berating them because you feel the need to so I really don't get what goes on here.
You are perfectly understanding of most things so I guess I just see what you do here as a vendetta that you get some kind of satisfaction from. And that makes me sad. Because I do think you're better than that.
But what would I know right?

soulsinging wrote:

nothing they do in their home? murder? molesting children? you're right though. it's not the kid's fault. he shouldn't be accountable for his actions. it's society's fault.

I knew you'd bring that up. I didn't think I'd have to put the disclaimer in though. Obviously if someone elses health and wellbeing are being affected behind closed doors then we as a society have to act.
And I don't think that it's societies fault. Well no more than usual. The kid is responsible for his actions BUT I'm just not giving a free pass to the media, the poor wittle media, for allowing it. The kid's done the wrong thing and the media have too.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

im saying it sucks for dog, but if he knew his words might cause problems (and he did, that was what the convo was about), he should have been more careful in speaking them.

Ok, so you're saying that no matter who you are, where you are or what you are doing, you need to choose your words carefully?

soulsinging wrote:

yes, it's a shitty thing to do. but it's not illegal. and as ive said time and again, people are shitty and you should never expect them to do anything but shitty things to each other.

Shitty people may be, and not illegal either, but that's not really an excuse to compound bad behaviour is it?

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, but doesn't the conversation belong to both of them because they both participated in it? It's a recording of both of them? Therefore shouldn't BOTH parties in the conversation legally have the same rights??? The right to privacy, the right to monetary compensation? I mean isn't that the principle of royalties?
Shouldn't the media outlet that procured the conversation of BOTH people have to have the permission of BOTH people BEFORE they go public? By not procuring DOGS permission they breached his privacy. As did the son for not having DOGS permission before he went to the media.

The trouble I see with it Cosmo, is it sets a nasty precedent. This is not stuff that was in the public domain and although it was maybe only a loser family looking for a bit of cash (who decides that anyway) what's to say a bit of fancy lawyering in a few years won't see the ramifications of it for ordinary people? Not to mention the message it sends to people right now.

no, that isnt the way it works. it's not a precedent. it's established law.