All you're left with is........self-interest or should I say the need for the world to cater to one's every whim and emotion; regardless how dishonest that emotion.
I find these words to be quite ironic, considering your position throughout this thread.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I find hilarious is when non-minorities think their insensitivity to minority issues works both ways to the same degree.
What I find hilarious is when whites are referred to as non-minorities. Anyways, are you saying that there should be a double standard when it comes to comedic insensitivities, or even regular ole' non-comedic insensitivities??
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
What I find hilarious is when whites are referred to as non-minorities.
On the whole in North America the majority of people are white.
Anyways, are you saying that there should be a double standard when it comes to comedic insensitivities, or even regular ole' non-comedic insensitivities??
No. I am noting my observation that the whites--often white males-- that our societal institutions are fashioned by and around, sometimes tend not to recognize these inequities in our society. Therefore equating their experience with other unequal experiences is a moot point for me. I notice that often whites, or white males think such dynamics works on equal logical footing. When in reality human interactions and human variables do not match up like 1=1.
So when fanch75 said: "Ever heard a black person (comedian, random dude, whatever) make fun of how white people talk? It's HILARIOUS. I didn't get offended, didn't make a thread about it ", I heard this as being a different topic altogther than the case of a minority group, whose particular sensitivities are apparently not overly acknowledged and validated, at least judging by what I am seeing in this thread.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No. I am noting my observation that the whites--often white males-- that our societal institutions are fashioned by and around,
What societal institutions do you speak of?
sometimes tend not to recognize these inequities in our society. Therefore equating their experience with other unequal experiences is a moot point for me. I notice that often whites, or white males think such dynamics works on equal logical footing. When in reality human interactions and human variables do not match up like 1=1.
Again, I am speaking of art (comedy) being encroached upon, not society in general.
I heard this as being a different topic altogther than the case of a minority group, whose particular sensitivities are apparently not overly acknowledged and validated, at least judging by what I am seeing in this thread.
But in the case of Fanch75's statement, if you believe that a minority groups sensitivities are not overly acknowledged, are you then implying that the non-minority groups sensitivities are being acknowledged?? If so, I beg to differ. If any white was to complain about racial insensitivities at the hands of a comedian they would be laughed off the air, as they should.
EDIT: Sorry I screwed up the quote things. I have questions mixed in with your text.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
But in the case of Fanch75's statement, if you believe that a minority groups sensitivities are not overly acknowledged, are you then implying that the non-minority groups sensitivities are being acknowledged??
I'm not understanding what you are saying here.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But in the case of Fanch75's statement, if you believe that a minority groups sensitivities are not overly acknowledged, are you then implying that the non-minority groups sensitivities are being acknowledged?? If so, I beg to differ. If any white was to complain about racial insensitivities at the hands of a comedian they would be laughed off the air, as they should.
The truth is the original poster's point stood alone. Side issues do not minimize the validity of the original point made in this thread. They are merely side issues. If we get caught up in fighting for and lending credence to the side issue, when we are not doing so with the actual issue, we're complicating rather than clarifying things. The logic becomes distorted. If fanch is unable to give credence to the first poster, then does he think it's okay to ask that he be given credence? Then we begin debating on why whites deserve equal billing. ?????? All in the name of overlooking/glossing over a valid point--the original poster's point. I can't play a part in that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The truth is the original poster's point stood alone. Side issues do not minimize the validity of the original point made in this thread. They are merely side issues. If we get caught up in fighting for and lending credence to the side issue, when we are not doing so with the actual issue, we're complicating rather than clarifying things. The logic becomes distorted. If fanch is unable to give credence to the first poster, then does he think it's okay to ask that he be given credence? Then we begin debating on why whites deserve equal billing. ?????? All in the name of overlooking/glossing over a valid point--the original poster's point. I can't play a part in that.
The original poster's post was :So just out of curiosity, where was the outrage from the political-correctness crowd? What if Rosie had said something like "And over in Africa, the newsman said "booga booga Danny DeVito ooga booga The View"?
I feel that it is all one issue within itself. Not side issues. It sounds as though you are backtracking from your statement. You brought up Fanch, not me. I asked you a question if you felt that since minorities issues are being ignored what would happen if it was the other way around. You responded with seeing more than one point and backing them 100% of having those beliefs. Again, this statement was not made by a head of state, but rather a comedianne, and a bad one at that. Within that parameter, why shouldn't whites be given equal billing?
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
The original poster's post was :So just out of curiosity, where was the outrage from the political-correctness crowd? What if Rosie had said something like "And over in Africa, the newsman said "booga booga Danny DeVito ooga booga The View"?
Yes, and from this, what I hear is "why is this a non-issue, but if it were about African-Americans or Africans it would be a different story?" To me, this is a valid point.
Again, this statement was not made by a head of state, but rather a comedianne, and a bad one at that. Within that parameter, why shouldn't whites be given equal billing?
All people are equal and should be treated as such. What I'm saying is that they are not. And considering such inequity, you'll pardon me if I'm focussing on those who are receiving less consideration and who therefore have an issue as a result.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is not a complicated subject matter. The only one's making it more complicated than it really is- are people like angelica and dkst0426. And their motives at best, seem self-serving.
It's a rather simple subject matter.
Either it's okay to poke fun at all groups of people, or it is not.
Anyone who has laughed at any entertainer's jokes, impersonations, parodies or satire of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; has no business spouting off in anger at what Rosie said.
It's that simple.
If it's acceptable to laugh at the culture, mannerisms and speech patterns of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; then it's okay to laugh at everyone.
Otherwise one is practicing preferential treatment and preaching rules of a preferential nature. That's not equality. That's bias and discrimination.
Attempts to delute and fragment the essence of this issue only prove how overly-sensitive and biased people have become, in their discriminatory attempts to silence one group of people, for the pretense of protecting another group of people.
Yes, and from this, what I hear is "why is this a non-issue, but if it were about African-Americans or Africans it would be a different story?" To me, this is a valid point.
All people are equal and should be treated as such. What I'm saying is that they are not. And considering such inequity, you'll pardon me if I'm focussing on those who are receiving less consideration and who therefore have an issue as a result.
Back to the original post, I feel that the pc crowd was all over this, after all it's been in the headlines and on the nightly news. To me that then makes the original post invalid. As far as focusing on those who receive less consideration, there is again nothing wrong with that, as there is nothing wrong with me focusing on the overall issue of the response to something a coimic says. However, my original point has and remains that people are overly sensitive to anything involving race to the point of attempting to induce unneccesary levels of censorship (see the laugh factory banning the "n" word) and attracting plenty of media attention. Remember, the customer that was yelled at by Kramer sole intention (according to him) was to playfully heckle the former Seinfeld star. Did he get what he deserved? Absolutely not! Should he have been kicked out long before the racists remarks were made? Absolutely! Had he been kicked out prior to the incident would he have claimed racism and gotten Sharpton involved? Who knows? Bottom line Censorship was UnAmerican, but America's changing for the worse.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
Back to the original post, I feel that the pc crowd was all over this, after all it's been in the headlines and on the nightly news. To me that then makes the original post invalid.
Maybe the original poster was referring to people on this board. Why was this not considered an issue for the numerous so-called politically-correct people out here?
As far as focusing on those who receive less consideration, there is again nothing wrong with that, as there is nothing wrong with me focusing on the overall issue of the response to something a coimic says.
I agree, except you and I have different ideas of what the "overall issue" is.
However, my original point has and remains that people are overly sensitive to anything involving race to the point of attempting to induce unneccesary levels of censorship (see the laugh factory banning the "n" word) and attracting plenty of media attention. Remember, the customer that was yelled at by Kramer sole intention (according to him) was to playfully heckle the former Seinfeld star. Did he get what he deserved? Absolutely not! Should he have been kicked out long before the racists remarks were made? Absolutely! Had he been kicked out prior to the incident would he have claimed racism and gotten Sharpton involved? Who knows? Bottom line Censorship was UnAmerican, but America's changing for the worse.
Who has been censored in your view?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
All people are equal and should be treated as such. What I'm saying is that they are not. And considering such inequity, you'll pardon me if I'm focussing on those who are receiving less consideration and who therefore have an issue as a result.
You're arguing that people should be upset about this and make a big stink about it.
I'm arguing, that based on the context of what Rosie said, people should not be upset about this and they have no business making a big stink about this.
Nor do I think people should get upset and make a big stink out of most of the nonsense that they do.
What Rosie said is not even remotely similar to what Michael Richards did. Not even close. In my opinion, the only ones who should be upset and make a stink are the black people who were there in that club. And even then there's a very incomplete picture of what exactly occured before that video of Richards and his tirade began. It seems those black guys may have verbally heckled Richards with the 'cracker" slur, before he flipped out. So I hardly see them as victims or anyone who deserves a financial settlement.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should have kept their big mouths shut and kept their noses out of it. Of course Al and Jesse won't be speaking out against the next black entertainer to slam white people, will they?
Equality my ass!
You either want total equality and no discrimination and racism at all; or your one of those who do discriminate through preferential treatment.
You're arguing that people should be upset about this and make a big stink about it.
Not at all. I'm saying that actual communication and understanding takes place when we seek to understand the other person's point of view. I'm also saying that when our intent is to get the other person to sacrifice their view and pretend to have a view that they do not, we are not acknowledging the actual problem. We're justifying distorting it along with our understanding of it. Therefore, I see that we are not making progress in addressing the problem. We're ignoring it. At least Rosie validated the issue publicly. She acknowledged it which is a step. It may be short a full-fledged apology, depending on how you look at it, and she as much gave herself permission to do something similar in the future due to her nature, according to what I got from the article. It's definitely a step in the right direction, in addressing the hurt feelings and the offense taken.
You either want total equality and no discrimination and racism at all; or your one of those who do discriminate through preferential treatment.
Plain and simple.
I don't buy into "either/or" arguments. I see that as a polarized unrealistic perspective. To each their own view, though.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Non-event, huh? Seems pretty convenient when someone from a certain political leaning makes such comments. Can't imagine it would've been a non-event if it had been ohhh, say....a conservative who had made the same comments.
By the way, in case anyone out there happened to find her comments humorous--they're not. I'm Chinese, and what she said ranks right up there with the kung fu/martial arts questions, the rice and noodle comments, the eating cats and dogs comments, etc. etc.
maybe my asian wife should kick the hell out of rosie
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
This is not a complicated subject matter. The only one's making it more complicated than it really is- are people like angelica and dkst0426. And their motives at best, seem self-serving.
It's a rather simple subject matter.
Either it's okay to poke fun at all groups of people, or it is not.
Anyone who has laughed at any entertainer's jokes, impersonations, parodies or satire of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; has no business spouting off in anger at what Rosie said.
It's that simple.
If it's acceptable to laugh at the culture, mannerisms and speech patterns of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; then it's okay to laugh at everyone.
Otherwise one is practicing preferential treatment and preaching rules of a preferential nature. That's not equality. That's bias and discrimination.
Attempts to delute and fragment the essence of this issue only prove how overly-sensitive and biased people have become, in their discriminatory attempts to silence one group of people, for the pretense of protecting another group of people.
Well said ... It took a while, but finally someone made a clear point. angelica and a few others are just muddying what shouldn't be an overly complex issue. A bunch of hot air in the service of political correctness.
And yes, that "Richeal Richards" thing was a typo ... A damn hilarious one, mind.
I agree and I don't mind if people poke fun at different people, but there is a line and certain discretions. In this case I didn't find it particularly funny and offensive. If she had made fun of chinese drivers or something that is more benign than I would probably be okay with it. It depends on delivery and intent as well as degree.
Any comedian at the laugh factory who usually uses "nigger" in their act. While that may not seem like that big of a deal to some, it is censorship. It will most likely involve other words to be banned at the club as well. In the Rosie O'Donnel instance, she will not do her "impression" again, and I'm sure the higher ups at ABC have let her know in no uncertain terms to "watch it" in the future. Those are just two examples of who has been censored.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
In the Rosie O'Donnel instance, she will not do her "impression" again, and I'm sure the higher ups at ABC have let her know in no uncertain terms to "watch it" in the future. Those are just two examples of who has been censored.
Here is where you and I see differently. Imagine I am a very public comic, and I find that my routine has inadvertently become offensive to a group of minorities. If I take that into consideration and decide to make amends and acknowledge the "offense" and change my routine, I call that adapting. I call that problem solving. I don't call that censorship. I'm also not as quick as you are to make "sure" comments about the higher ups at ABC without evidence. So in this case I see evolution/adaptation happening, a point taken. I don't see censorship.
I saw an outcry from the Asian community--a cry of free speech, expressing/voicing their upset, and when I also see that the media and the celebrities who rely on the public for their support, are quick to assess that feedback and proceed accordingly so as to keep public images going strong, and the money flowing to themselves, I don't see that as censorship. I see that as a natural flow of life. Media/celebrities are looking to pander to the masses in order to sustain their positions. That's not censorship, that's awareness of their audience. It would be a different story if Rosie was known for her racist humour, in making a point, and defended it. And was forced to stop. There is a difference between the integrity of her basic routine and a minor mistake she's quite willing to rectify. Although very different situations, similarly in the Michael Richards case, the issue was not about his routine and his artform, the issue was about he, as a man, having a temper tantrum and revealing possible racist tendencies which he was/is quick to work to get past--voluntarily for good reason. As many of us would do, were we to inadvertently reveal a similar side of our personality in our workplace, if we, too, were greeted with being shunned for it. This is how cultural norms work.
In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here is where you and I see differently. Imagine I am a very public comic, and I find that my routine has inadvertently become offensive to a group of minorities. If I take that into consideration and decide to make amends and acknowledge the "offense" and change my routine, I call that adapting. I call that problem solving. I don't call that censorship. I'm also not as quick as you are to make "sure" comments about the higher ups at ABC without evidence. So in this case I see evolution/adaptation happening, a point taken. I don't see censorship.
I saw an outcry from the Asian community--a cry of free speech, expressing/voicing their upset, and when I also see that the media and the celebrities who rely on the public for their support, are quick to assess that feedback and proceed accordingly so as to keep public images going strong, and the money flowing to themselves, I don't see that as censorship. I see that as a natural flow of life. Media/celebrities are looking to pander to the masses in order to sustain their positions. That's not censorship, that's awareness of their audience. It would be a different story if Rosie was known for her racist humour, in making a point, and defended it. And was forced to stop. There is a difference between the integrity of her basic routine and a minor mistake she's quite willing to rectify. Although very different situations, similarly in the Michael Richards case, the issue was not about his routine and his artform, the issue was about he, as a man, having a temper tantrum and revealing possible racist tendencies which he was/is quick to work to get past--voluntarily for good reason. As many of us would do, were we to inadvertently reveal a similar side of our personality in our workplace, if we, too, were greeted with being shunned for it. This is how cultural norms work.
In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.
i grew up with don rickles and redd foxx among others and this PC stuff is rediculous. why isn't anyone crying about carlos mencia?
I'm also not as quick as you are to make "sure" comments about the higher ups at ABC without evidence. So in this case I see evolution/adaptation happening, a point taken. I don't see censorship.
quote]
I also am not sure that ABC made comments to her, however if they did that is something we will probably never know. What I do know is that Rosie said she would probably say something in the near future that will offend. Now I am not a viewer of either the View or her old talk show, but I am willing to venture a guess that it will be a LONG time before she says anything or does impressions that another race or ethnic group could find offensive. You will probably say that is a sign of her becoming more aware of what she says, I say it's the network execs breathing down her neck. With Michael it was not about his artform as you stated, but what it resulted in was censorship, we you have still not touched upon.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.
First of all I feel you are using the word "artform" far too freely with Rosie. Now with her bosses hovering over her, if it's in her "best interest" to be reminded to change or lose her job then I don't see that as an "assertive free choice". I would understand the move, and probably do the same in her position, however I would not feel that it was by my own free will.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
i grew up with don rickles and redd foxx among others and this PC stuff is rediculous. why isn't anyone crying about carlos mencia?
She already covered that. Because minority issues and insensitivities are often not acknowledged by the mainstream, it is not an equal playing field. As such it is ok for those that are minorities and comedians have free range at what material they like. Double-Standard?? Absolutely. BTW Carlos Mencia is an amazing comedian!!
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
She already covered that. Because minority issues and insensitivities are often not acknowledged by the mainstream, it is not an equal playing field. As such it is ok for those that are minorities and comedians have free range at what material they like. Double-Standard?? Absolutely.
This is entirely a figment of your imagination, as you have misconstrued my refusal to compare the two situations and you've even gone so far as to add in an actual answer for me, attributed to me, with your own judgment attached. However what I actually believe and stand behind remains outside this exercise in delusion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is entirely a figment of your imagination, as you have misconstrued my refusal to compare the two situations and you've even gone so far as to add in an actual answer for me, attributed to me, with your own judgment attached. However what I actually believe and stand behind remains outside this exercise in delusion.
I have a very active imagination. Now how 'bout my comments on censorship above
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
Please, please take roseanne and whoopi with them, PLEASE.
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.
I have a very active imagination. Now how 'bout my comments on censorship above
It looks like you have all you need to answer your own questions. If you're going to misconstrue my ideas to fit your agenda, then, I'll just bow out and and make it easier for you to do so.
My gist throughout this thread is that rather than understand the actual complaint/issue, people are jumping ahead, and to conclusions, and glossing over the issue by sidetracking themselves. You've further proven the point I made about fanch's comments. When someone says something, and you are unconcerned with comprehending what they are saying, and only focussed on your agenda, it makes for non-communication and for complicating the problem, not solving it. Understanding and an intent to problem solve reveals itself with understanding and problem solving.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What I find hilarious is when whites are referred to as non-minorities. Anyways, are you saying that there should be a double standard when it comes to comedic insensitivities, or even regular ole' non-comedic insensitivities??
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
So when fanch75 said: "Ever heard a black person (comedian, random dude, whatever) make fun of how white people talk? It's HILARIOUS. I didn't get offended, didn't make a thread about it ", I heard this as being a different topic altogther than the case of a minority group, whose particular sensitivities are apparently not overly acknowledged and validated, at least judging by what I am seeing in this thread.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But in the case of Fanch75's statement, if you believe that a minority groups sensitivities are not overly acknowledged, are you then implying that the non-minority groups sensitivities are being acknowledged?? If so, I beg to differ. If any white was to complain about racial insensitivities at the hands of a comedian they would be laughed off the air, as they should.
EDIT: Sorry I screwed up the quote things. I have questions mixed in with your text.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I feel that it is all one issue within itself. Not side issues. It sounds as though you are backtracking from your statement. You brought up Fanch, not me. I asked you a question if you felt that since minorities issues are being ignored what would happen if it was the other way around. You responded with seeing more than one point and backing them 100% of having those beliefs. Again, this statement was not made by a head of state, but rather a comedianne, and a bad one at that. Within that parameter, why shouldn't whites be given equal billing?
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
All people are equal and should be treated as such. What I'm saying is that they are not. And considering such inequity, you'll pardon me if I'm focussing on those who are receiving less consideration and who therefore have an issue as a result.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's a rather simple subject matter.
Either it's okay to poke fun at all groups of people, or it is not.
Anyone who has laughed at any entertainer's jokes, impersonations, parodies or satire of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; has no business spouting off in anger at what Rosie said.
It's that simple.
If it's acceptable to laugh at the culture, mannerisms and speech patterns of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; then it's okay to laugh at everyone.
Otherwise one is practicing preferential treatment and preaching rules of a preferential nature. That's not equality. That's bias and discrimination.
Attempts to delute and fragment the essence of this issue only prove how overly-sensitive and biased people have become, in their discriminatory attempts to silence one group of people, for the pretense of protecting another group of people.
Back to the original post, I feel that the pc crowd was all over this, after all it's been in the headlines and on the nightly news. To me that then makes the original post invalid. As far as focusing on those who receive less consideration, there is again nothing wrong with that, as there is nothing wrong with me focusing on the overall issue of the response to something a coimic says. However, my original point has and remains that people are overly sensitive to anything involving race to the point of attempting to induce unneccesary levels of censorship (see the laugh factory banning the "n" word) and attracting plenty of media attention. Remember, the customer that was yelled at by Kramer sole intention (according to him) was to playfully heckle the former Seinfeld star. Did he get what he deserved? Absolutely not! Should he have been kicked out long before the racists remarks were made? Absolutely! Had he been kicked out prior to the incident would he have claimed racism and gotten Sharpton involved? Who knows? Bottom line Censorship was UnAmerican, but America's changing for the worse.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
I agree, except you and I have different ideas of what the "overall issue" is.
Who has been censored in your view?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're arguing that people should be upset about this and make a big stink about it.
I'm arguing, that based on the context of what Rosie said, people should not be upset about this and they have no business making a big stink about this.
Nor do I think people should get upset and make a big stink out of most of the nonsense that they do.
What Rosie said is not even remotely similar to what Michael Richards did. Not even close. In my opinion, the only ones who should be upset and make a stink are the black people who were there in that club. And even then there's a very incomplete picture of what exactly occured before that video of Richards and his tirade began. It seems those black guys may have verbally heckled Richards with the 'cracker" slur, before he flipped out. So I hardly see them as victims or anyone who deserves a financial settlement.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should have kept their big mouths shut and kept their noses out of it. Of course Al and Jesse won't be speaking out against the next black entertainer to slam white people, will they?
Equality my ass!
You either want total equality and no discrimination and racism at all; or your one of those who do discriminate through preferential treatment.
Plain and simple.
I don't buy into "either/or" arguments. I see that as a polarized unrealistic perspective. To each their own view, though.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
maybe my asian wife should kick the hell out of rosie
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
anyways...done my smoke...time to go back and watch the GIANTS game
Well said ... It took a while, but finally someone made a clear point. angelica and a few others are just muddying what shouldn't be an overly complex issue. A bunch of hot air in the service of political correctness.
And yes, that "Richeal Richards" thing was a typo ... A damn hilarious one, mind.
Any comedian at the laugh factory who usually uses "nigger" in their act. While that may not seem like that big of a deal to some, it is censorship. It will most likely involve other words to be banned at the club as well. In the Rosie O'Donnel instance, she will not do her "impression" again, and I'm sure the higher ups at ABC have let her know in no uncertain terms to "watch it" in the future. Those are just two examples of who has been censored.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
I saw an outcry from the Asian community--a cry of free speech, expressing/voicing their upset, and when I also see that the media and the celebrities who rely on the public for their support, are quick to assess that feedback and proceed accordingly so as to keep public images going strong, and the money flowing to themselves, I don't see that as censorship. I see that as a natural flow of life. Media/celebrities are looking to pander to the masses in order to sustain their positions. That's not censorship, that's awareness of their audience. It would be a different story if Rosie was known for her racist humour, in making a point, and defended it. And was forced to stop. There is a difference between the integrity of her basic routine and a minor mistake she's quite willing to rectify. Although very different situations, similarly in the Michael Richards case, the issue was not about his routine and his artform, the issue was about he, as a man, having a temper tantrum and revealing possible racist tendencies which he was/is quick to work to get past--voluntarily for good reason. As many of us would do, were we to inadvertently reveal a similar side of our personality in our workplace, if we, too, were greeted with being shunned for it. This is how cultural norms work.
In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
there are these things called tact and delivery..........you should look into them.
Your exchange with the person who was offended made you sound childish.......even though i don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint.
i grew up with don rickles and redd foxx among others and this PC stuff is rediculous. why isn't anyone crying about carlos mencia?
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
First of all I feel you are using the word "artform" far too freely with Rosie. Now with her bosses hovering over her, if it's in her "best interest" to be reminded to change or lose her job then I don't see that as an "assertive free choice". I would understand the move, and probably do the same in her position, however I would not feel that it was by my own free will.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
She already covered that. Because minority issues and insensitivities are often not acknowledged by the mainstream, it is not an equal playing field. As such it is ok for those that are minorities and comedians have free range at what material they like. Double-Standard?? Absolutely. BTW Carlos Mencia is an amazing comedian!!
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I have a very active imagination. Now how 'bout my comments on censorship above
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Please, please take roseanne and whoopi with them, PLEASE.
My gist throughout this thread is that rather than understand the actual complaint/issue, people are jumping ahead, and to conclusions, and glossing over the issue by sidetracking themselves. You've further proven the point I made about fanch's comments. When someone says something, and you are unconcerned with comprehending what they are saying, and only focussed on your agenda, it makes for non-communication and for complicating the problem, not solving it. Understanding and an intent to problem solve reveals itself with understanding and problem solving.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!