Rosie's comments about Asians

Skitch Patterson

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't think people should take things offensively unless they actually feel that that certain person was meaning it in a negative sense. Terms carry different meanings to each person saying them. These things should be viewed on an individual basis unless the term was originated as a negative term and has always been viewed as such. Because sometimes, actually more often than not, people are just looking for a word to describe and communicate with.

i... agree....

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

We may be sensitive. It that is the case, do you suggest we ignore that in hopes that it will go away? That's what's called ignore-ance and denial.

The thing is, if people are sensitive about something, that is what it is. Someone can't pretend otherwise. If people deny their feelings, we get exactly what we have in our evolution right now: a majority of people who have no understanding of how to solve their interpersonal problems (also happening on the world stage), because they are ignoring them. The irony is that once the emotions are addressed and dealt with, they go away. When they are ignored, there are underlying tensions that seep out everywhere. Emotions were a part of our brain functioning that developed for a reason, and when we discard them, we operate in an imbalanced way. Personally, I'm for problem solving. I'm for clearing up issues so we can actually live our lives and have fun. I'm for contributing to solutions, not to problems.

All I'm saying is consider the source. If the Klan is coming to your town (or may already be there) and they are preaching hate and destruction we must confront and deactivate any power or perceived power they may have. However, if the source is a comedian/ne and they are making a (imo) harmless statement then it should be taken as that. I never said to ignore, but I am sick of people drawing attention just for press as opposed to actually being offended. If you are sensitive enough, one can be offended by most anything a comedian says. There job is to make fun and for many of them to do impressions to get a response of laughter. The response to what Rosie did just brings out more fears of mine that we are heading into such a politically correct state, one of which we will never return from, that comedians will forever be censored. Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, and George Carlin are all heroes to me. They had taken comedy where no one else had and I'm glad that recordings will forever exist of them so that down the road when the only comedians allowed on network television are Carrot Top and Bonnie Hunt, I can put on my dvd's of the greats and laugh my ass off. That is if I'm not required to burn said discs before then.

fanch75

angelica wrote:

We may be sensitive. It that is the case, do you suggest we ignore that in hopes that it will go away? That's what's called ignore-ance and denial.

Occassionally being offended comes with freedom of speech. Sorry.

Like Abook said (this is the 2nd time I've agreed with her this week - say yer prayers!), folks need to rethink their feelings a bit and not be so sensitive. Common sense applies - if it's done in hate, then yeah be pissed. If it's done in humor, then either laugh or don't/move on. Not a big deal.

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.

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

All I'm saying is consider the source. If the Klan is coming to your town (or may already be there) and they are preaching hate and destruction we must confront and deactivate any power or perceived power they may have. However, if the source is a comedian/ne and they are making a (imo) harmless statement then it should be taken as that. I never said to ignore, but I am sick of people drawing attention just for press as opposed to actually being offended. If you are sensitive enough, one can be offended by most anything a comedian says. There job is to make fun and for many of them to do impressions to get a response of laughter. The response to what Rosie did just brings out more fears of mine that we are heading into such a politically correct state, one of which we will never return from, that comedians will forever be censored. Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, and George Carlin are all heroes to me. They had taken comedy where no one else had and I'm glad that recordings will forever exist of them so that down the road when the only comedians allowed on network television are Carrot Top and Bonnie Hunt, I can put on my dvd's of the greats and laugh my ass off. That is if I'm not required to burn said discs before then.

If you are less sensitive given any topic, it's ineffective to suggest to a person more sensitive to the subject to not feel what they do in fact feel. They aren't suggesting you feel the way they feel. They are merely asking that their base stance be taken into consideration, and be taken seriously. The only way negotiation works is when the TWO basic stances are acknowledged as a given and taken seriously. Yet you, theoretically, seem to be suggesting more sensitive people "should" feel the way you do. To suggest that others be like one's self is a skewed approach and prevents negotiation and problem solving. And in psychology, it's considered co-dependent. Of course 95% of our population is considered codependent at this point, which is why we are evolving through more complex ways of problem solving as a solution. Whether we like it or not.

angelica

fanch75 wrote:

Occassionally being offended comes with freedom of speech. Sorry.

I know.

I'm talking about having one's base position in any disagreement, and standing behind an expectation that your position be taken seriously before any kind of problem solving on an issue can take place. One need not defend why they think or feel what they do. Finding solutions extends from one's position. It does not extend from sacrificing one's position. In negotiation, concessions are made in good will, with reciprocity. In this thread, their has been little sign that others are willing to meet the op in the middle to any degree. Yet there are lots of signs that the "majority" expects this poster to sacrifice his/her feelings for the opposing side. Interesting.

Like Abook said (this is the 2nd time I've agreed with her this week - say yer prayers!), folks need to rethink their feelings a bit and not be so sensitive. Common sense applies - if it's done in hate, then yeah be pissed. If it's done in humor, then either laugh or don't/move on. Not a big deal.

Are you suggesting people with different attitudes to your own adopt your attitude. That would be an effective problem solving approach....if it worked.

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

What I find hilarious is when non-minorities think their insensitivity to minority issues works both ways to the same degree.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

If you are less sensitive given any topic, it's ineffective to suggest to a person more sensitive to the subject to not feel what they do in fact feel. They aren't suggesting you feel the way they feel. They are merely asking that their base stance be taken into consideration, and be taken seriously. The only way negotiation works is when the TWO basic stances are acknowledged as a given and taken seriously. Yet you, theoretically, seem to be suggesting more sensitive people "should" feel the way you do. To suggest that others be like one's self is a skewed approach and prevents negotiation and problem solving. And in psychology, it's considered co-dependent. Of course 95% of our population is considered codependent at this point, which is why we are evolving through more complex ways of problem solving as a solution. Whether we like it or not.

If people are offended then fine. If they are more sensitive than me that is fine too. I just hope that wilth all of this "pollution solution" there isn't even greater censorship of are already limited freedom of speech. To those who say freedom of speech still exists, I would be willing to wager almost anything that if Rosie was to make another "racist" remark she would be asked to leave the show. I don't even like the woman, but her freedom of speech should be upheld! Being offended is natural, but as I stated before when you deal with a comedian virtually anyone could take offense to something in that comedians act if they were sensitive enough, however they could also change the channel.

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

If people are offended then fine. If they are more sensitive than me that is fine too. I just hope that wilth all of this "pollution solution" there isn't even greater censorship of are already limited freedom of speech. To those who say freedom of speech still exists, I would be willing to wager almost anything that if Rosie was to make another "racist" remark she would be asked to leave the show. I don't even like the woman, but her freedom of speech should be upheld! Being offended is natural, but as I stated before when you deal with a comedian virtually anyone could take offense to something in that comedians act if they were sensitive enough, however they could also change the channel.

I agree that the freedom of speech be upheld. That is another equally valid stance here. I'm thinking a show like the view would make interactive concessions, lonnngggg before they would compromise their freedom of speech (I would think they would draw the line at freedom of speech). At least that would be what I would find to be appropriate for the other stance. I also doubt the original poster would want their feelings, or racial issues acknowledge at the expense of free speech. It's not either/or. The thing is when all this stuff is put on the table, the fear of loss and risk turns out to be the illusion. Actual growth is what comes of it. Growth is about improvement. It's the denial and ignorance and avoiding growth that is the real problem.

Comedy is an art form. It is not at risk. Comedy will continue to make points that hit people beyond the level of logic. I have the impression Rosie was not intending her objectional approach as the gist of her point, therefore in reality, it's probably not a huge deal for her to realize something she did not understand prior to this situation and make small amendments that does not affect her artform.

NMyTree

angelica wrote:

The only persons who can sit here and claim to be offended and shocked by Rosie's comments with legitimacy and honesty are those individuals who have emotions.

Everyone has emotions. All kinds of different and varying emotions. But not all emotions warrant and deserve a platform for protest. Not all emotions are honest. Especially those rooted in hypocrisy and double-standard.

Yes, as human beings we are all prone to hypocrisy and double-standards on some level and on some issues. But as human beings we need to learn to be honest with ourselves and the with the people around us. Be honest enough and self-aware enough to realize and acknowledge those double-standards/ hypocrisies and own up to it. It is irresponsible to spout off about some nonsense that Roise O'Donnel said, yet still enjoy a good laugh when the joke is on someone else.

To sit here and play the role of Sensitive Sally to these poor and wounded individuals:rolleyes: who are emotionally injured by what Rosie said; only puts you (and anyone else) in the role of enabler and appeaser to dishonesty.

This is the very same type of dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards that leads to rampant wars and the banning of words and the banning of subjects/issues which are permitted to be discussed.

The exact type of dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards that leads to cheating husbands (of many years and many lovers/affairs) beating or killing their wives, when after 10 years of loyalty and commitment the wife gets fed up with her cheating husband and either cheats herself or leaves the moron for another man.

It's the type of dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards that when appeased, nurtured and coddled, that sets a precedent of acceptance and can develope into much more serious and dangerous dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards. Something this country and the human species has experienced and seen occur so many times in the past and present.

This country has turned into a landscape littered with overly-sensitive, spineless, dishonest individuals with weak character and irresponsible tendancies. Honesty with oneself has become an antiquated notion, replaced by self-serving, every emotion-glorifying, ego-feeding individuals who spend way too much time stroking their own ego and their own notions of good -intent; while justifying yet another act of irresponsibilty and unaccountability.

Yeah, we all have emotions. But learning to be honest with ourselves and keeping those emotions to an honest and realistic proportion; would go a long way to the progress and integration of our cultures and society.

Learn to accept our own individual quirks, individual characteristics and shortcomings and learn to appreciate that which makes us different from each other. Learn to appreciate those differences and appreciate the humor in it all.

Learn to realize that those differences can be perceived, even in the face of parody, satire and humor; as endearing and lovable differences. Believe it or not some people (such as myself) prefer to celebrate our differences and perceive it stimulating that we are not all exactly alike. I celebrate our differences. It makes the world a far more interesting place to live ......a better place to live.

It's not all about hate and denigration. It only becomes about hate and denigration if you want to make it about that, or if you interpret it all as hate.

angelica

NMyTree wrote:

To sit here and play the role of Sensitive Sally to these poor and wounded individuals:rolleyes: who are emotionally injured by what Rosie said; only puts you (and anyone else) in the role of enabler and appeaser to dishonesty.

Validating someone's feelings is definitely not a dyfunctional enabling behaviour. It looks like you are equating your moral judgments with reality here. I see your judgments as your opinion (and they stand as such). Hoever, I don't see them as being about the op or the subject matter, but instead about you.

This is the very same type of dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards that leads to rampant wars and the banning of words and the banning of subjects/issues which are permitted to be discussed.

In my opinion it is the leaving of these variables as a blended mash that is the cause of these problems. Sincerely seeking to untangle and comprehend these issues clears up problems of war and banning of words. Uncovering and knowing is the opposite of ignorance.

It's the type of dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards that when appeased, nurtured and coddled, that sets a precedent of acceptance and can develope into much more serious and dangerous dishonesty, hypocrisy and double-standards. Something this country and the human species has experienced and seen occur so many times in the past and present.

I personally think that coddling ignorance is the problem. Digging one's feet into progress is the problem. Avoiding adaptation in life is an evolutionary problem that causes fallout of maladaption.

Believe it or not some people (such as myself) prefer to celebrate our differences and perceive it stimulating that we are not all exactly alike. I celebrate our differences. It makes the world a far more interesting place to live ......a better place to live.

It looks like you only celebrate the differences that are easy to celebrate. And that when there is conflict, then it becomes all about your point of view, at the expense of the other one--in this thread, anyway. I happen to see a world where two opposing views can stand, 100% with respect, dignity and understanding.

NMyTree

Ignorance is as prevelent in the forms of perception and interpretation, as it is in the form of expression.

Without honesty, responsibility and acknowledgement of one's own hypocrisy and double-standards; there can never be true understanding.

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.

angelica

NMyTree wrote:

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.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

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??

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

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.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

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.

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

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.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

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?

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

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.

NMyTree

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.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

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.