April 12, 2007

Imus fired, ushering in a new era, where racist talk will no longer be tolerated in mainstream entertainment media.

The precedent is set. Let's go on from here. Everyone is on notice. This will not be tolerated. You'll have to figure out new ways to have your fun and shock people. No more racial slurs. Everybody stop now.

138 comments:

Pogo said...

Re: "No more racial slurs."

...except by non-whites; then it's mandatory. Always a laugh.

XWL said...

Indeed, what Pogo said.

Does that mean "urban radio" will only play uplifting non-offensive music?

If CBS Radio applies that standard in a colorblind manner, there goes 95% of their playlists on some stations.

Will there be a 'paper bag test' with regards who can make what kind of statements?

Someone who looks like Rashida Jones wouldn't be able to make racially charged comments, but a person the shade of Halle Berry could?

Revenant said...

Sadly, all of the media personalities who slandered the Duke lacrosse players still have *their* jobs.

bill said...

No longer allowed:

1. Coca Cola Blak
2. The rule about no whites after Labor Day

Omaha1 said...

After watching the cable news channels covering this for the last hour or so, I am nauseated by the parade of obsequious fools, rushing to the nearest microphone to denounce their former associate. All these celebrities and political figures, that have appeared on Imus' show, now bow and scrape and feign ignorance of all of his previous offensive remarks.

SteveR said...

Just remember, "PC for thee but not for me"

These things always sound good applied to certain people but those who push for them never see how it can apply to them.

Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

Peter Palladas said...

nappy-headed hos ???

...Help me out here. It's a Brit language thing. I simply have no idea what that could mean.

Nappy? Well, I believe I'm with you, though thought you people called such things diapers.

But after that I'm completely lost.

It's not a Jane Fonda "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" thing I assume, but what do I know?

In 'Will & Grace' a 'ho' is that most sublime of beings - a homosexual. I get that OK.

Head - headed. Sounds simple, but could be oral sex. One has to be so, so careful out there in Lingo Land.

So are we talking about homosexual women who wear baby clothing for hats? That happens?

You can see why - much as I may have many good friends among them - I could never let my daughter marry an American.

Lost in translation utterly.

RogerA said...

my prediction: Imus will find a home, continue to make money, and CBS will loose market share in the tri-state area.

HD HOUSE: you as an advertiser would know this--weigh in here for us.

Omaha1 said...

Peter, if you're not just kidding, "nappy-headed" refers to African American hair in its natural state, and implies a lack of grooming. "Ho's" is gansta-ese for "Whores".

B said...

First, Imus

My next choice - ROSIE O'Donnell

Freder Frederson said...

Ahh, Rush, Savage, and all the other right wing idiots will still be free to spew their racist filth. It is expected of them. Imus was held to a somewhat higher standard because liberals and MSM personalities were frequent guests on his program.

Besides, you've still got Fox News and LGF.

B said...

How ironical . . .

Rappers who call themselves "DJ" but aren't real DJ's say worse everyday and get paid for it.

Imus IS an actual DJ and gets fired for saying the same things.

Go figure . . .

johnstodder said...

Pogo, XWL -- You really can't see the difference between a news personality like Imus using racial epithets on a program aimed at a mass audience, and a rapper whose CD comes with an "explicit language" sticker?

I don't think it has a thing to do with race. It has to do with context. A white rapper who used the word "ho" would get away with it, because that's what the hip-hop audience apparently expects. It's supposed to be offensive in just this way. The fact that a 50-year-old guy like me hates it is exactly why so many 25-year-olds--of all races by the way--dig it.

Imus, by contrast, used the public airwaves, during a show mostly known for its political interviews and author appearances, during a sports headline segment. In that context, it just sounds like a racist old guy who went out of control by exposing his sick mind to his audience. There's no comparison between what Imus said and hip-hop.

I do wish Les Moonves could have come to his decision without first having to be schooled by the absurd Rev. Al Sharpton. If Moonves is taking moral instruction from Sharpton, that's scary. Firing Imus should have been a no-brainer, period, regardless of who else wanted to see it happen or why.

Peter Palladas said...

Peter, if you're not just kidding

No, not kidding at all. I can fully see now why that was not a kindly thing to say.

And damn sure no daughter of mine is going to marry an American.

What have you guys [one can say this still?] done to my language!!

Meade said...

"No more racial slurs. Everybody stop now."

Ann
A white woman to a black person — or a black woman who acts too much like a white one. While Miss Ann, also just plain Ann, is a derisive reference to the white woman, by extension it is applied to any black woman who puts on airs and tries to act like Miss Ann.

(List of ethnic slurs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Eli Blake said...

What gets me though is that some righties have been jumping all over Al Sharpton (HE didn't make the comment, Imus did!) like he is behind all of this.

I've even heard them out and out lying about Sharpton, for example claiming that he has never said anything about rap music (not true-- I watched James Brown's funeral and Sharpton told pretty much everyone who was anyone in the black entertainment industry-- because they were all there-- that they needed to 'clean up the music.')

But after listening to Rush and Michael Savage (yes, I'm a hardcore liberal but you'd be surprised at the variety of stuff I listen to) you'd have thought that it was Al Sharpton who was responsible for the controversy, not Don Imus. It was truly disgusting.

Further, Savage intentionally repeated and expanded on the 'ho' insult last night, and it was pre-meditated.

Palladian said...

"What have you guys [one can say this still?] done to my language!!"

This from the land that calls an electric flashlight a "torch". Cor blimey!

Icepick said...

What have you guys [one can say this still?] done to my language!!

We've shizzolated it.

Peter Palladas said...

2. The rule about no whites after Labor Day

Now that most definitely was on 'Will & Grace' the other day. Jack said it.

We laughed. Weren't we allowed to?

Palladian said...

Don Imus never got anyone killed or dragged through the courts with his offensive utterances, Eli. Sharpton has him beat.

B said...

New Althouse reader . . .

How to read comments by "freder frederson":

He is a generalizer which is something akin to racist - someone who lumps those of views differing from his into one stereotypical box. Examples: all blacks are . . ., all conservatives are . . .

Danger - you will be misinformed if you take him seriously.

Example of one of his inaccurate statements (above post): Ahh, Rush, Savage, and all the other right wing idiots will still be free to spew their racist filth.

Here he has lumped Rush Limbaugh - not someone considered to be racist - except by other racists - with Michael Savage, a demonstrated racist. And, freder cannot provide any proof of his slur about Limbaugh, only overheated opinion.

You, dear new Althouse reader, will want to avoid such hateful generalizations and, quite possibly, most, if not all postings by Mr. frederson (hint: look for hateful adjectives and descriptives in the first few sentences of his post)

Please feel free to continue perusing other postings with an open mind.

Additional lessons to follow, all at no charge.

Icepick said...

And then there's the irony of Imus being called to task for his racist comment by Jessie "Hymie Toown" Jackson. I wonder if Senator Robert "White N*****" Bird has weighed in?

johnstodder said...

Freder,

Come on now. You can't be that stupid. You know damn well that if Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage ever said anything like what Imus said, they would be fired even quicker than Imus was. Imus got a tremendous benefit of the doubt because his firing would've embarassed all the MSM personalities who've sucked up to "the I-man" so embarassingly for the past 10 years or so. The right-wing radio hosts are monitored carefully by their foes for any statements of this kind. If any one of them ever said something like what Imus said, you'd know about it the same day, and the boycotts of advertisers would begin immediately. I don't listen to Rush very often, but given that dynamic, it's a guarantee he's never said anything "racist" on his show.

You don't really believe he's a "racist." You just like saying it because it makes you feel better about yourself. Kind of sad actually.

Matt said...

First of all, being one of those privileged and educated white males in the mold of, oh, say, a Duke Lacrosse player, I hope I'm not Kaplaned for what follows.

Ann said: "Everyone is on notice... No more racial slurs."

Is the notice really just about racial slurs? This wasn't just a racial slur, it was a racial AND a gender slur.

What if he'd just said they were "nappy headed gals"? Same level of outrage?

What if he'd just said they were "hoes," or even "ugly-ass hoes"? Same level of outrage?

I have my doubts whether either of those comments alone would have gotten him fired. In this case the whole appears greater than the sum of its parts. Regardless of the outcome, I'm not sure exactly what it is that we're on notice for.

What if he'd called a men's team "nappy-headed thugs"?

What if Imus was black?

A woman? Asian?

I'm not saying what he said wasn't wrong, offensive, and hurtful, it was, but this firing is hardly putting us on "notice" of anything.

About all I really know, and this is mostly a result of the recent Kaplan fiasco, is that if you're a "privileged" white male you're best bet is to shut your yap and enjoy all the inherent privileges that come with being decended from Europeans and having a penis. I took a class on constitutional equality at UW Law that taught me this lesson as well. I would love to vigorously engage the racial and gender debate, if only my credibilty wasn't immediately destroyed because of the color of my skin and the anatomy between my legs. How ironic.

The Kaplan and Imus comments are completely different, I get that. Regardless, one informs the other.

Back to the case at hand, paradoxically, it seems to me that the hypothetical "nappy headed gals" comment would be more offensive to the general public but less personally offensive to an individual female athelete, whereas an "ugly-ass hoes" comment would be particularly hurtful on a personal level, but less likely to have the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world calling for the severed head of the sayer.

Seven Machos said...

1. I find this whole episode to be rather nappy.

2. You can only get mau-maued if you agree to get mau-maued, which is what Don Imus did for some reason. This would never happen to Howard Stern. Rush Limbaugh would never say such a ridiculous thing because he is too savvy and too libertarian at heart.

3. Apparently, if Alexander Cockburn is to be believed, this is just the last in a terrifically long line of racist comments uttered on Don Imus's show.

Peter Palladas said...

This from the land that calls an electric flashlight a "torch".

Yo buddy [see how fluent I am?].

Of course it's a frigging torch! A modern electric version of the flaming thing our ancestors used to illuminate their caves.

[Ancestor - n. Something you people don't really have.]

Flashlight? Give me a break! [More fluency.] It doesn't 'flash' unless you're doing Morse Code!

AlaskaJack said...

Hey Freder, tell us when your gonna lead your next demonstration against all those radio stations that use the public airwaves to broadcast hip-hop music.

B said...

Eli,

Surely you are as disgusted as I am with Al Sharpton being given any credibility for anything

Al Sharpton should not be considered in any way regarding this incident. He is the equivalent of David Duke, and ANYONE supporting him in any way is severely lacking in character and backbone.

It reflects poorly on our society today that some one like him is given any media soapbox.

Here's a black writer who's column this morning explains it best: Jason Whitlock

XWL said...

I'm not defending Imus, never liked his schtick.

But, if the words themselves are offensive, shouldn't matter the context.

There was a time when you wouldn't hear certain words broadcast, regardless of the context. Now we are supposed to differentiate between inter-ethnic/cultural or intra-ethnic/cultural contexts.

But there are no such thing as intra-ethnic/cultural contexts when it comes to popular culture.

CBS Radio and the record labels that produce the music are far from being exclusively African American.

So you have people of all races profiting on the exploitation and exultation of poverty, stupidity, and misogyny.

That ain't right and it's not a particularly positive change in our collective culture.

If the words themselves are wrong, then the mouth they escape from doesn't make any difference.

I believe in letting bigots speak as they choose. I'd rather know for certain that somebody is a bigoted jerk, than have to guess at it.

ganzo azul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B said...

I personally can't stand Imus, listened to him once with Clinton (Hillary's husband)and wondered what in the world caused anyone to find him worth listening to.

But that said, Les Moonves at CBS has no balls.

Seven Machos said...

Am I the only person who sees a bright-line distinction between media such as AM and FM radio and broadcast television,, which have limited bandwitdth that is ultimately owned by the federal government, and every other media, including newspapers and flyers and cable television and satellite radio and every aspect of the Internet, which is privately owned?

If any government entity wants to limit speech on government-owned bandwidth, it can (though I think it shouldn't). All government entities have no right to attempt to proscribe speech in privately owned media.

B said...

Wait . . . how about when Hilary becomes President - oh, just accept it - she appoints a "Secretary of Our Homeland Village Sensitivity"?

Quarterly reports on who should be roundly condemned and fired. Camps for education for the offensive among us.

And, this just in . . . despite the imus example, Rosie O'Donnell still employed.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Couple of things...

Peter, American English is a different dialect than the Queen's English. The roots and most of the words are the same but given the pond that separates us and 200+ years they have elvolved differently. Same goes for Australia...

I saw a couple of posts where people could not understand why everyone was getting on the Pharisees' (Sharpton and Jackson)case about the whole Iums deal. It's because their motives are impure. When they arrive it's to do only a couple of things. Line their pockets and fan the flames. The only 'black community' they care about is themselves and their hangers-on.

When Imus apologized for his asinine statement, those two "Christians" are bound by the faith they profess to have to forgive him. See any forgiveness coming from them? Hmmmmmm? Don't hold your breath. To them it's about power and money.

Smilin' Jack said...

Yo Brits:

When 300 million people call it a flashlight, and 60 million people call it a torch, then the first is correct usage, and the second is a dialect.

And we will never tire of reminding you that if it weren't for us, you'd be calling it a Taschenlampe.

Bruce Hayden said...

Seven Machos

You seem to be arguing Red Lion and scarcity. But Imus was also fired from his radio show. Add to that that MSNBC is cable, so again, arguably not covered by Red Lion. And in both situations, the silencing was done by private actors.

Seven Machos said...

Bruce -- Agreed. I have no problem with Don Imus getting fired, insofar as that is CBS's corporate decision.

My problem is with people saying things like "It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves."

Revenant said...

What gets me though is that some righties have been jumping all over Al Sharpton (HE didn't make the comment, Imus did!) like he is behind all of this.

The obvious reason why "the righties" (and the honest "lefties") are "jumping all over Al Sharpton" in this case is simple: he is guilty of far worse public expressions of racism than Imus exhibited here. He has absolutely no right to criticize, and should (a) shut the fuck up and (b) never be seen in public again.

B said...

My favorite part of this so far: all the literati (and celebrity ILliterati) who have been on Imus' show for years - what do they say now?

From John Leo's column:
"New York Times eminence Frank Rich, a regular Imus guest, is ever alert to smears of gays and women and virtually went into a swoon when George Allen used the word "macaca." Yet a computer search failed to turn up any complaints from Mr. Rich about Imus's bigoted remarks."

I am especially looking forward to what Frank Rich - a hateful, bigoted writer - has to say about this.

Bruce Hayden said...

Freder said: Ahh, Rush, Savage, and all the other right wing idiots will still be free to spew their racist filth. It is expected of them. Imus was held to a somewhat higher standard because liberals and MSM personalities were frequent guests on his program. Besides, you've still got Fox News and LGF.

I think that it is sweeping generalities like that that have cost Freder most of whatever credibility he may once have had. He sweeps the largest cable news station in with one of the more extreme conservative blog sites. And he just blythely assumes that Rush, et al. are racist. What is the basis of this? Apparently, that he is conservative. That is apparently all it takes in Freder's world to be permanently tarred with that tag.

But that is far from the truth. I can somehow get Rush on my UHF radio, broadcast a couple of seconds ahead of his 50kw broadcast here in CO on 850 KOA (complete with the same comercials). So, occasionally, I listen as I walk to lunch.

And the reality is that he gets on some African Americans who attack him, and he is almost always gracious in response. Indeed, over almost 20 years, I have never heard him say anything that could really be considered racist. Yes, he makes fun of the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. But not because they are black, but because they are liberal racist hypocrites.

Harkonnendog said...

Let's figure this out... I mean, are these the rules right now, basically?

Racist talk demeaning whites by anyone = okay.

Racist talk demeaning Jews by non-white and/or white liberal = tolerable, by white non-liberal = atrocity.

Racist talk demeaning blacks by blacks = grammy!, by whites, Jews and Asians = atrocity, by Latinos = borderline(?). Exception: if the black targeted is Republican the target is no longer black. See racist talk about whites above.

Racist talk demeaning Latinos by whites, Jews, Asians = bad, by Latinos = okay, by blacks = tolerable.

Racist talk demeaning Asians by whites = bad, by blacks and Latinos = good, by Jews and Asians = tolerable.

Is that about right? Ahh crap. Are there different rules for gender?

Bruce Hayden said...

My problem is with people saying things like "It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves.

I agree. I keep hearing that the new Democratic majority in Congress wants to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" - presumably I suspect to shut Rush and the other conservative talk show hosts down.

Luckily though, at least the dicta in Red Lion would seem to cut against that. The basis of that decision was on allocation of a scarce resource, and neither the airwaves nor cable are likely to qualify as such. By now, if they want to apply the "Fairness Doctrine" to network TV, then fine. It will just make such even less profitable, in comparison to the alternatives, by eliminating some programming and paid advertising.

Peter Palladas said...

And we will never tire of reminding you that if it weren't for us, you'd be calling it a Taschenlampe.

God. I've just realised what you think you're saying! That is so offensive. Seriously.

Bruce Hayden said...

Harkonnendog

Pretty thorough.

Probably not by sex/gender, per se, but possibly by sexual orientation. Already, gays can call each other "queer" but straights can't.

I would suggest that when a gay calls a straight white, asian, or Jew something nasty, it is ok, and if they do it in reverse, bad. But if they do it to people of color (excluding Asians), they revert their regular classification (white, Jewish, or Asian), and it is thus bad. But it is just fine (I think) if non-Asian people of color call gays and lesbians fags, queers, etc.

But if you are going that far, then maybe we have to look at the difference between gay (males) and lesbians. There, I think that the lesbians have the upper hand at being the superior victims.

Seven Machos said...

Imus is being pummeled because he mau-maued. I'm no fan of Ann Coulter, but she is going to be fine after her run in with the thought police. Same with Rosie O'Donnell.

I've never listened to Don Imus and care not a whit about him, but let this be a lesson to enterprising media personalities: mau-mauing can only cause career injury. When criticized, criticize back, harder.

That's maybe not the ideal thing for a society, but it's the right thing career-wise.

Jennifer said...

Pogo: Re: "No more racial slurs." ...except by non-whites; then it's mandatory. Always a laugh.

I'd correct that too, except against whites.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Harkonnendog has something here. His matrix is useful, but is really too crude for use in this complex world. Over the next couple of days, I am going to try to program a PC insultometer, where you specify a number of properties of both parties, and see who can get away with using perjorative terms towards the other.

The characteristics that I am thinking of starting with are:
- Race
- Hispanic?
- Religion?
- Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Political Party Affiliation

Obviously, White, non-Hispanic (fundamentalist) Christian male straight Republican is least acceptable, and probably Black, Hispanic, Moslem, lesbian Democrat would be the most acceptable. Anyone can be offended by what he says, except for another guy just like him. But the black Moslem lesbian can only be insulted, and can never insult, given her overwhelming victimhood.

My thoughts right now are to use a weighting function in Excel that ultimate gives results similar to Harkonnendog's. This could be an important tool for anyone who can't figure out whether or not their victimhood trumps that of someone else, and, thus, who can insult whom with impunity, and who can't.

Bruce Hayden said...

Using my insultometer, Imus' problem was that he was too far down on the victimhood list. The only quality that he had going to offset his oppressive superiority was that he was realtively liberal. But that was partially offset by wearing that cowboy hat. Guys who wear cowboy hats shouldn't ever insult any other groups, except for straight Republican males, presumably also wearing cowboy hats (but I think that party affiliation trumps wearing the cowboy hat here).

Maxine Weiss said...

Let's all take moral instruction from CBS Radio---the new arbiters of good taste!

Peace, Maxine

Kevin L. Connors said...

When they come for Carlos Mencia, then I'll worry.

The Exalted said...

Uh, Rush Limbaugh famously denounced Donovan McNabb, claiming he only got positive publicity because he is black. He got fired from that bastion of political correctness, ESPN.

Maybe he isn't a racist for saying that, but he certainly is a lying, reckless demagogue. And anyone who follows football knows McNabb is a topflight quarterback, with no affirmative action involved.

Harkonnendog said...

Bruce I hope you're serious about doing that because it would be the ultimate tool, especially in Universities. If we could truly quantify Identity Politics that way we'd all know where we stand!

It would be like Hammurabi's wall- a written, simple, clear explanation of the rules. Please do it!

Seven Machos said...

1. Donovan McNabb doesn't have anything to do with this.

2. Rush Limbaugh doesn't have anything to do with this.

3. Donovan McNabb is vastly overrated.

Darone said...

And the reality is that he gets on some African Americans who attack him, and he is almost always gracious in response. Indeed, over almost 20 years, I have never heard him say anything that could really be considered racist. Yes, he makes fun of the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. But not because they are black, but because they are liberal racist hypocrites.

You mean the Rush that called Ray Nagin, "Mayor Naeger" or the Rush who calls Obama a "hafrican" or maybe the Rush that calls Native Americans "injuns". Yeah that Rush was only attacked by those groups and he was just lashing out. Riiiiight!

I'm sure that it makes it easier to sleep at night thinking that Rush and his ilk are just refusing to be politically correct and that the brown people just don't get it, but the reality is that you just look the other way as racists like him spew their bile.

Seven Machos said...

Can someone please explain what Rush Limbaugh has to do with this thread?

downtownlad said...

NBC fired him, because it was afraid of a mass exodus by its black employees. Good for NBC. If 90% of the Fortune 500 companies today, if someone said this to a co-worker by the water cooler, they would be fired on the spot. I'm glad NBC is holding its more prominent employees to the same standard it does everyone else. Racial slurs should not be tolerated in the workplace.

As for Michael Savage, I disagree with johnstodder. Since it is expected that right-wingers are going to be bigots, nobody really cares when they say offensive things. They, and their fans, love that stuff - i.e. Ann Coulter getting cheered when she calls people faggots.

Take for example this exchange, which again, would get someone fired at most public companies:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702270015

I'm all for free speech. But why should respectable stations tolerate this kind of crap? If someone wants to be a bigot, let them start a blog.

downtownlad said...

And it's amusing that all of these right-wingers who are defending Imus, thinking that it's no big deal to call someone a nappy-headed ho, are the same ones who called for Bill Maher's head - and got him fired, when he made his remarks about the 9/11 hijackers not being cowards.

AJ Lynch said...

Exalted:

Re McNabb & Rush: You are wrong.

Rush only said he thought the mostly white media was pulling for McNabb to succeed because it wanted a black QB to be a winner. I think McNabb is verg good QB but also think there was some truth to Rush's sugestion. And it was not a racist statement or act.

I SUGGEST YOU Take a look at your beloved liberal MSM TV news readers and count how many are black!! Then get back to me and tell if you think the MSM has discriminatory hiring practices.

David53 said...

NBC fired him, because it was afraid of a mass exodus by its black employees.

No.

They fired him because he became a finacial liability. Originally they suspended him, then when advertisers started to pull back they canned him. It's all about the money. Obviously the sponsors felt pressure from special interest groups but if the advertisers hadn't caved in I think he would still be there. He should have been fire years ago.

Invisible Man said...

AJ,

That was and is complete bs. Why didn't the liberal media choose Randall Cunningham or Warren Moon or Dante Culpepper as their token "negro" quaterback? The fact is that poeple happen to like Donovan in the same way they like Brett Favre. And just like Brett Favre, who gets way to much fawning attention because people like him alot personally instead of the fact that he's a white qb, Donovan gets much of the same. Rush's and your efforts are nothing but a weak "reverse racism" claim to convince yourselves that the Man is holding the Man down.

AJ Lynch said...

DTL said:

"NBC fired him, because it was afraid of a mass exodus by its black employees."

So you define a mass exodus as 20-30 out of what thousands? Do you have any stats on how many blacks are employed by NBC other than the story about the 20 news readers on that conference call? FYI - you may wish it were true but very very few high-paid news readers will quit their high-paid news reading gigs without another job waiting.

And do you recall if the heavyset Gumbel brother threatened to quit when his own brother slandered white Olympians?

Before you claim I am defending Imus, I think it is crime he has even had a job for the last ten years. Imus has proved you can make big bucks in Manhatan if you can meld lack of talent with psuedo-intellectual veneer. Is it possible Imus was Keith Olbermann's role model?

Jacques Albert said...

L'affaire Imus (ee-moose) and the scandalous and perverse Duke faculty "88" irresponsibility both illustrate the obvious general problem with PC, i.e., the attempts (primarily on the left) to intimidate, ridicule, silence, censor and punish all opposition to favored ideas and "mascots", as the incisive Thomas Sowell has it. Duke University is a case in point, as the home of millionaire Marxists and Stalinists like Frederic Jameson and hosts of other "post-human", "post-colonial", radical feminist "hate- America-at-all-costs" theorrheists and "pervessers" teaching in departments like women's, "trans-gender" and ethnic studies or cultural anthropology, or sike, or sosh, or ed, or . . ., which are little more than social and political advocacy clubs masquerading as academic disciplines. Once in a while these ideological freaks, as was said of Byron, dabble in evil to make themselves interesting and "relevant", as in the shameful Duke lacrosse hysteria and trial by left-wing media. The poisonous combination of magic thinking, pernicious conspiracy theorizing and arch Schadenfreude of these "pervessers" is astonishing.
Time to attack President Bush again. . . .

downtownlad said...

David53 - I was watching on TV tonight, and an NBC spokesmen said it was employee complaints that made the decisive decision.

I totally believe this. Imus's ratings would probably be higher because of the fuss, and even if major corporations did an ad boycott, companies aren't stupid - and plenty of people would be willing to buy airtime if the ratings are large.

NBC is based in New York. I bet at least 15% of its workers are black. Why piss them off????

XWL said...

Luckily, as a nation we are well on our way to screwing this problem out of existence.

(the sooner the better, too)

Cedarford said...

This is all about how the Cult of Victimhood and identity politics is making America LESS tolerant than it used to be.

TV shows that spoofed ethnic social mores were once laughed at by whites, blacks, hispanics, and Asians alike. Now one must be very careful, and comedy or sarcasm must only come from a "legitimate" person's mouth. Or it transgresses race, culture, and class boundaries and that person or group must be destroyed by a PC lynch mob.

The erosion is clear.
Just one of many examples??

When Mitt Romney's Dad Gov George Romney ran for President, everyone agreed his mormonism was no problem. 40 years later, it is...because victimologists and social experts in the media point out they believe Mitt being a Mormon is a huge problem - because of "intolerance"...Hyped up by them...
So?
The result is the media takes that and portrays it to the public as:

"Mitt Romney's huge Problem of Being Mormon...Will it cost him the Presidency??"

Thus Mormon bias that didn't exist in America is reinvented to fit the metanarrative of race, religion, culture, class and gender group identity grievance agenda.

The kabuki rituals are getting well known. Oppressor says or does something. The "outraged" grievance class "demands" their apology. A possible apology might prevent those with unlimited moral authority from their self-proclaimed victimhoodfrom demanding the total destruction pf the groveling Oppressor (usually some white male). Or perhaps not as with Imus.
If wrong, the lynch mob of racist blacks, Stalinist feminists, activist Jews and Gentiles of the Left and Media never apologize.

Same old thing. They got Imus's head. Unfortunately the Dukies were found innocent, but they still suffered enough to satisfy the lynch mob for a year or so. Now it's on to the next kabuki ritual performed on a new target.

joe said...

Every couple of years the race grievance industry needs a human sacrifice. This time Imus, last time perhaps Trent Lott, for saying things that would not bat an eyelash if said by a protected class. Imus must be destroyed for saying that would be innocuous if repeated by a rap "artist." Double standards employed by pious hypocrites.

JSF said...

I'm a former New Yorker who remembered when Stern and Imus were on the station at the same time. However, here is what I don't understand:

1) Rev. Sharpton can falsify a rape and be forgiven. The false rapee caused an accused rapist to kill himself. No words of regret from Rev. Sharpton

2) Rev. Jackson can call NYC "Hymietown" and be allowed to speak at the podium during Prime Time at the Democratic National Convention.

3) Imus, who said something stupid, and insulted EVERYBODY for decades, is not allowed the act of Contrition and is thrown off the air.

Let it be known that April 12, 2007 was the day the First Amendment died because of Liberalism (I listened to pacifica radio today and they supported censorship).

Freder Frederson said...

the lynch mob of racist blacks

This is rather a poor juxtaposition of images when you are trying to create the myth of the horribly oppressed White Christian Male.

johnstodder said...

As for Michael Savage, I disagree with johnstodder. Since it is expected that right-wingers are going to be bigots, nobody really cares when they say offensive things.

Michael Savage is as close to Imus as anyone's mentioned. However, there is a slight distinction to be made. In the rant you linked, he is talking about himself -- how he reacts to a gay couple raising children. He's not using epithets. He's giving an opinion. The way he's expressing it is pretty offensive, I'll grant. But to be against gay marriage or gay adoption does not, by itself, equate to being an anti-gay bigot. Practically speaking, of course, there is overlap, but there are many people (including some gays) opposed to gay marriage on what they believe to be principle, not hatred of gays.

Imus, on the other hand, wasn't expressing an opinion. He was delivering a vicious, bigoted insult to a group of people he was only talking about because they won some basketball games. The context of his comment was that a black-dominated team beat a white-dominated team. His comment revealed a deep-seated racism.

Imus thinks it helps to talk about going to funerals of black children and endorsing Harold Ford, Jr., but it actually makes it worse: He's a strategic bigot, who will pretend to embrace blacks because he knows it makes him look good, but means nothing. It served Imus' purposes to endorse Ford, but now we know what Imus really thought of him, and what he really thought of the deceased child's family.

Freder Frederson said...

Let it be known that April 12, 2007 was the day the First Amendment died because of Liberalism (I listened to pacifica radio today and they supported censorship).

You obviously don't even know what the first amendment says.

JSF said...

So Feder, free Speech for Thee and not for Me? That is what was expressed on Pacifica Radio today.

Bruce Hayden said...

I really hate it, but I have to agree with Freder here. The 1st Amdt. really has nothing to do with it.

Of course, that is where he and I would part company, on what the problem really is.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freder Frederson said...

Thus Mormon bias that didn't exist in America

Yeah right, there was never any Mormon bias in America. Its founder was only lynched and most of its adherents chased to Utah. But bias, nah!

Freder Frederson said...

So Feder, free Speech for Thee and not for Me?

You seem to be confusing the right to say any obnoxious, racist, misogynistic thing you like and using the public airwaves to amplify your message. The first is an absolute right, the second is a privilege and a license.

Suzie Nolen Bennett said...

Even though I'm white, I was born with a nappy head, even wearing dreds for a while. And before I got married, calling me a 'ho' would be an understatement. Lord knows I've been called much worse names regularly. I just didn't have the fortune of videotapes showing up on YouTube.

It disappoints me that the ladies didn't take the high road and just ignore Imus' comments. The coach (et al.), missed the opportunity to teach them how to deal with knuckleheads such as Imus in a productive, mature way. The inevitable lawsuits and book deals will show who among them are the real grownups.

I don't see this as an issue regarding skin color so much as skin thickness.

downtownlad said...

There's nothing wrong with being biased. People should just admit that they are.

When Michael Savage says that gay people aren't normal, well maybe he shouldn't act so shocked when people say he's anti-gay.

When Imus calls the Rutgers Basketball team nappy-headed hos, maybe he should admit that he's a little bit racist.

I think all white people are a little bit racist. We'd be better off if we at least recognized this and tried to self-correct it.

It's funny - many people have zero problem admitting they are anti-Muslim. Why are they so hesitant to admit that they might be anti-gay or racist as well?

SGT Ted said...

About all I really know, and this is mostly a result of the recent Kaplan fiasco, is that if you're a "privileged" white male you're best bet is to shut your yap and enjoy all the inherent privileges that come with being decended from Europeans and having a penis.

Can I borrow some of your white privelege? I can't seem to find mine anywhere.

JSF said...

Feder, but on the Huffington Post and Bill Maher, they can talk about killing the Vice President and you see nothing wrong there? If you censor one person, how soon before they come after people you care about?

Freder Frederson said...

identity politics is making America LESS tolerant than it used to be.

Yep Cedarford, I too miss the days when you could call a spade a spade (or a wop a wop, a polack a polack, a mick a mick) and nobody said anything. And if that black family moved in down the block, well a few broken windows would let them know real quick they didn't belong here.

downtownlad said...

JSF - You DO realize that Bill Maher lost his television show because of his post 9/11 remarks, don't you????

People are acting like this is the end of Imus' career. Give me a freaking break. He'll have a new show within a year and be as popular as ever.

NBC fired him. So what. How many times was Howard Stern fired?

Plenty.

Gahrie said...

I think all white people are a little bit racist. We'd be better off if we at least recognized this and tried to self-correct it.

But of course those "noble people of color" would never be so crass.......

Freder Frederson said...

If you censor one person, how soon before they come after people you care about?

No one, not even Imus, is being censored. He got fired from an extremely lucrative and high-profile job for saying an extremely obnoxious, racist, and misogynistic thing. But he has the freedom to continue to say whatever obnoxious things he wants to whomever he wants. But he does not have the right to be paid to do it. If someone wants to put him back on radio or some other form of mass media that is there decision. But I don't understand how it is censorship for people to say what he said is repugnant and the public airwaves should be put to better use.

downtownlad said...

Gahrie - Of course people of color can be racist. Lots of blacks don't like white people.

But then again they have plenty of reason not to. And they are not really in a position of power to do anything about it, so anti-white racism is not nearly as offensive as anti-black racism.

Palladian said...

"But then again they have plenty of reason not to. And they are not really in a position of power to do anything about it, so anti-white racism is not nearly as offensive as anti-black racism."

God, you are such a turd, Mary.

downtownlad said...

Whatever Palladian. At least I'm not fat.

Seven Machos said...

Lad -- How can you work the gay marriage angle into this?

downtownlad said...

Seven - I didn't.

Seven Machos said...

I just don't feel like you are trying hard enough.

downtownlad said...

I was actually talking about racism, until Palladian jumped in with his wisdom that "honky" is just as offensive as "n&gger"

zzRon said...

B said...."Here's a black writer who's column this morning explains it best: Jason Whitlock".

Thanks for the link. I was inspired by this gentleman's column.

IMO, Imus was just trying to be "cool" when he stupidly uttered those disrespectful words. As a semi regular listener, I have noticed that he takes great pride (rightly or wrongly) in considering himself as being "with it" and "hip". I guess he was too stupid (?) or naive to understand that in this ultra sensitive world of ours, there is *zero* tolerance for a "hip", old and priveledged white guy :-).

ShadyCharacter said...

hah hah!

I love it when DTL drops by to lay some turds! You know a rant about gay marriage is only a comment or two away. It can be a post on the price of tea in China and here come monomaniacal DTL to start in on the "I hate conservatives and I hate straight people and I hate religious people and I hate hatemongers..."

Always good for a chuckle.

Hey didn't you get kicked off of volokh's blog for being such a twit over there too?

Palladian said...

"Whatever Palladian. At least I'm not fat."

How would we know for sure? You're a coward who smears your shit anonymously. Anyway, I don't want to interrupt the little pseudo-sexual game you play in here, where you say stupid, inflammatory things and then get stiff reading the angry responses.

downtownlad said...

Your logic is warped shadycharacter.

I talk about racism.

Twits like you come on and taunt me for talking about gay marriage, when in reality I've talked about racism and bigotry.

But keep up the with the lies shadycharacter - people are smart enough to read through this thread to see who's really telling the truth. And it's not you.

downtownlad said...

Palladian - Again. I don't want to stoop to your level. You like to throw mud and then accuse others for doing the same.

I want to talk about racism and bigotry.

You insist on making this thread about me. Why?

downtownlad said...

To remind people. Here was my post.

Gahrie - Of course people of color can be racist. Lots of blacks don't like white people.

But then again they have plenty of reason not to. And they are not really in a position of power to do anything about it, so anti-white racism is not nearly as offensive as anti-black racism.


Perhaps Palladian can respond to this rationally rather than through personal attacks.

Seven Machos said...

...and then Downtown Lad went crazy and ruined the thread.

THE END

Palladian said...

"Perhaps Palladian can respond to this rationally rather than through personal attacks."

It's utterly charming when you feign humanity. Now don't you have some breeders to insult? Maybe, if you're lucky, they'll give you a spanking.

"...and then Downtown Lad went crazy and ruined the thread. "

She does that.

downtownlad said...

This really is very tiring and repetetive.

Again - I urge people to read through this thread.

I raise valid comments and points. And then readers who have a personal vandetta against me (seven, palladian, shadycharacter) respond with personal assaults and somehow try to lay the blame on me for ruining this thread.

It really is pretty comical.

Palladian said...

Anyway, back on planet Earth, would-be publicists should be made to study these sorts of incidents. It's a brilliant strategy for a lot of mediocre people to get a ton of free airtime.

downtownlad said...

Can someone please identify the post where this thread went downhill?

I'd like an objective answer.

I say it is where Palladian called me a "turd".

But if someone can find a post before that, I'd be interested in hearing what they think.

Seven Machos said...

It went downhill when the shrill leftists started talking about Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage -- whoever he is -- and Donovan McNabb. Aren't you the same people who complain that Althouse doesn't talk enough about law?

Cedarford had a rant that included his usual castigating of the big, bad Jewish people, and that never helps, but, basically, Lad, that's the long and short of it.

ShadyCharacter said...

Palladian wrote: "Anyway, I don't want to interrupt the little pseudo-sexual game you play in here, where you say stupid, inflammatory things and then get stiff reading the angry responses."

Ugh. I think Palladian may have finally found the reason that all these trolls keep coming back day after day. DTL, hurry up and finish and call it a night. Thank you.

downtownlad said...

I guess he was too stupid (?) or naive to understand that in this ultra sensitive world of ours, there is *zero* tolerance for a "hip", old and priveledged white guy :-).

Ultra sensitive? Geez - What would you consider to be going over the line?

Michael Richards and Mel Gibson suffered the same kind of condemnation. Should we really just ignore comments like theirs?

I'd be way more concerned about the state of society if their comments were met by a big yawn.

Seven Machos said...

The day we can have racist comments met by a big yawn will be a great day for the United States. That's what should have happened here. So liberal icon Don Imus is a racist idiot. Big whoop. Who cares? He's a meaningless idiot.

Race and class relations in this country are better than they have ever been, and better than they are in most every country in the world.

downtownlad said...

Seven - I think you proved my point.

Seven Machos said...

Interesting, Lad. Since your posts are so incoherent and full of juvenile invective, and since no one can be sure what your point is, it does give you the advantage of being able to say that someone else has proven your point.

downtownlad said...

Seven - Racism should be met with a yawn?

Then shouldn't it work both ways. Shouldn't we just yawn if someone is called a racist?

The next time a Republican says that Senator Byrd is a racist, I'll just yawn.

downtownlad said...

"Since your posts are so incoherent and full of juvenile invective."

Juvenile? No - you refusing to work with gay people because you're afraid they might look at you in the shower. That's juvenile.

Seven Machos said...

Downtown -- You've really lost your marbles. What are you talking about? Are you trying to be facetious? If so, your joke fails, on a par with an Ann Coulter bomb.

If you are serious, when have I ever said refused to work with gay people? When have I ever refused to shower with gay people? That's a false, libelous smear and horrible character assassination.

zzRon said...

DTL said...."Ultra sensitive? Geez - What would you consider to be going over the line?"


Yes, ultra sensitive. Its just the way it is right now. I would and do consider the term "nappy headed hoes" (especially when applied to talented, young and innocent female basketall players) as being "over the line" no matter who uttered the words. But then again, I dont look at myself as a member of the speech police.


"Michael Richards and Mel Gibson suffered the same kind of condemnation. Should we really just ignore comments like theirs?"


IMO, the words of Richards, Gibson and just about every other Hollywood elitist most definetly should be ignored. Its a "no brainer" as far as I am concerned.

I am new here....thanks for responding.

Seven Machos said...

Ron -- There are a few weird cranks who comment on this otherwise great site.

Finn Kristiansen said...

It always amazes me how some people absolutely refuse to make distinctions about who can say what to whom. They have no idea why some people might be annoyed at certain things coming out of the wrong person's mouth.

That said, I don't think people should be fired or have to do these ridiculous apologies. A brief "tsk, tsk" and all should move on.

(Although, some whites really do need to understand why nigger or ho coming from one black to another (who, probably are of similar skin color, income, background or experience) might be entirely different from a white person saying the same. It's willful ignorance to pretend there is no distinction of worth).

Kirk said...

XWL,

Awesome link! The topic is relevant, and confirms my own impressions about the growing incidence of interracial marriage.

But enough about that--far more important: until I read that article, I was completely unaware of the existence of Smut Eye, Alabama. How can I ever thank you?

XWL said...

Kirk, no need to thank me, just find someone ethnically unlike yourself to breed with.

(afterall, if us men don't get enough women pregnant, they may start getting each other pregnant instead)

B said...

Finn said:

Although, some whites really do need to understand why nigger or ho coming from one black to another (who, probably are of similar skin color, income, background or experience) might be entirely different from a white person saying the same. It's willful ignorance to pretend there is no distinction of worth

You're right, Finn - It IS different. That's the ENTIRE ISSUE at hand.

It shouldn't be any different for one human being to say something derogatory about another. Either everyone gets to - or NO one should. No racial expletive "preferences". No group exceptions.

Otherwise, don't waste your breath talking about the lack of racial "equality" in this country.

zzRon said...

Finn said..."It always amazes me how some people absolutely refuse to make distinctions about who can say what to whom."


Unless you are willing to view all folks as being totally equal, I am sorry to say that it will continue to amaze you. There should be NO distinctions as far as human rights are concerned. Wouldn't you agree?

B said...

Because I so disrespect the character of so many Democrats when they remain silent, and hypocritical, when one of their own does something wrong or, worse, something evil. . .

and . . .

because I so disrespect the news media members (Russert,Frank Rich, ABC's crew, et al) and politicians (of both parties) who have continually appeared on Imus's show shilling books et al, knowing full well that he constantly says things equally as offensive as the latest remarks - and yet they won't defend him or explain themselves now . . .

(say, I guess that kind of makes all of them - dare I say it - "hos")

. . . I must defend dtl, at least to say that his posts were not incendiary above. I greatly respect the writings of palladian and seven machos and cannot speak for them. I have tussled with dtl before, but I do believe he has been more thoughtful and measured in in his recent Althouse postings. I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I actually agreed with a recent comment post he made.

Had to say it, or I would have been of the same despicable character as, say, that spineless waste of public money, Harry Reid.

Revenant said...

Racism should be met with a yawn? Then shouldn't it work both ways. Shouldn't we just yawn if someone is called a racist?

Yawning in response to accusations of racism would, given how common bogus accusations of racism are, require too much effort.

Danny said...

Last time I checked, CBS News is a private institution that can hire and fire people as it wishes. Continue to whine on about PC and censorship and reverse discrimination-- but what you're advocating for is (or at least seems to be) government intervention in the affairs of a private company.

Seven Machos said...

Danny -- Who in this thread has whined in the way you fantasize?

hdhouse said...

Well I've got my letters all set next time Minem rap plays on MTV, BET or VH1. White guy spewing racist descriptions of black women generally...or Rush or Savage observing the "get what they deserve New Orleans poor blacks"...

and I expect Viacom to act and Premiere Radio and Westwood One and ABC Radio. Now all I need is a puffbag like Al and Jesse (hmmm Al Roker or Al Sharpton??).

Yup. got 'em all ready.

Seven Machos said...

hd -- When did anyone say anthing remotely approaching "get what they deserve New Orleans poor blacks"?

Libel isn't just a cause of action. It's also morally reprehensible. And the people who practice it are stupid scum trying to mask the obvious fact that they are intellectually unable to make coherent arguments.

LoafingOaf said...

Most of what I knew of Imus was from Howard Stern's descriptions of him, and Howard has said that Imus is a racist amongst other despicable character traits. But no one I know of actually listens or watches Imus. Allegedly Imus attracts a certain middle-aged demographic that advertisers have trouble reaching, and apparently that's how he's stayed on the air all these years despiute almost no one tuning in to him.

Imus was briefly on the radio where I live in the '90s, and it reminded me of an old man's barber shop.

HDHOUSE said in a previous thread that he is closely associated with Imus' co-workers or something. He has a dog in this race.

I don't.

But I know a witch hunt when I see one. And I can't believe how this somehow became the News Story of the Week, even sucking Althouse reluctantly into its vortex. And now me.

I saw the "Reverand" Al Sharpton calling for stricter FCC retrictions on speech on the airwaves. I saw Jesse Jacksom calling for a "de-toxification" of the airwaves, including silencing speech critical of certain religions. I saw Keith Olbermann with an Air America guest salivating about using this to take down Rush Limbaugh. I browsed comments on DailyKos where commenter after commenter called for using this to take down a laundry list of media figures they disagree with.

Over on the right wing, I saw Michelle Malkin trying to push for censorship of music.

So the charlatans, hustlers, Stalinists of the Left, and the fascists of the right, are energized by all this.

I don't know if it was right or wrong to fire Imus. I, by instinct, feel emapthy for people targeted by lynch mobs and I've been consistant about this when the targets of these kind of mobs have been people across the spectrum. And I dislike seeing someone raked over the coals in excessive fashion.

But I cannot believe that I live in a country with a mainstream media that regards the likes of Al Sharpton as anything but a fraud, an opportunist, and a fool. They kiss his ass but I never will. And if they try and stomp on freedom of speech in general I will give them nothing but the finger.

dax said...

Imus made the critical mistake of groveling at the Sharpton altar after he made his asinine statement.
Had he apologized on the air, said he was sorry to the Rutgers girls, and dropped it, this would not have blown-up.
But no! He crawls over to Sharpton whines like an old woman and continues insisting to meet with the Rutgers girls to apologize in person. What an idiot!
The pathetic outcome of all this is that Sharpton has now been elevated to National Sheriff of the Thought Police.
This country deserves everything it’s getting and everything that's coming.

tjl said...

"a mainstream media that regards the likes of Al Sharpton as anything but a fraud, an opportunist, and a fool."

Sharpton's a fraud and opportunist without a doubt, but he's no fool. Just observe how deftly he's been able to play the Imus case to maximize his own power and influence.

Jennifer said...

I think there is at least some truth to what Finn Kristiansen is saying. The example that springs to mind is Jeff Foxworthy. He can do his thing in any Southern town to uproarious laughter but if the exact same routine were delivered by, say, a slick New Yorker, I have a hard time believing it would be well received.

What I don't understand is how this is being characterized as solely "racist talk", unless black people are reserving the right to call black women hos. Frankly, I think his comment was more sexist than racist.

Omaha1 said...

I don’t think that racial harmony will ever spring from the imposition and enforcement of rules dictating how we MUST think, feel, and speak about one another. It would be dishonest for me to pretend that I have never noticed cultural differences between various ethnic groups, or that I have always responded positively to these perceived differences. In my opinion, it would be more beneficial for all of us to publicly acknowledge our secretly-held negative, stereotypical beliefs, and to confront them openly, in the pursuit of a more enduring and sincere reconciliation.

Jennifer said...

I want to clarify my earlier comment. I still think there are some things that are offensive coming from any mouth, and I'd think "nappy headed ho" would fall into that category.

And, I'm making no judgment on what should happen to a person who dares to utter something offensive.

Jeremy said...

I wonder how Phil Hendrie would fair if he were still on the air. He typically never said anything too offensive but his "guests" were foul as all get out. How did that save him? Too small of an audience?

BARRY said...

IMUS WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF PRESSURE FROM ADVERTIZERS AND TOP MONEY PROMOTIONAL SPONSORS OS CBS AND MSNBC----WHEN WILL IT BE OKAY IN AMERICA TO HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AGAIN--WHEN WILL IT BE OKAY TO STATE AN OPINION OF SOME ONE WHO LOOKS A CERTAIN WAY AND THAT WAY RELATES TO A LOWER LEVEL OF SOCIETY---BUT THE PEOPLE WHO DRESS OR LOOKS THAT WAY GET THEIR FEELINGS HURT WHEN SOMEONE LIKE IMUS TALKS ABOUT THEM-----DOES ANYONE REMEMBER WHEN SPORTS TEAMS WERE HELD TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF DRESS CODES AND GOOD BEHAVIOUR---IMUS STATED AN OPINION AND IF THE RUTGERS TEAM DRESSED NICELY---DID NOT HAVE TATTOS---HAD DECENT HAIR-DOS LIKE TENN. PLAYERS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THAT UPSET---AND BY THE WAY WHEN DID AL SHARPTON(WHO HAS HAD PLENTY OF BLACK ON WHITE RACIAL SLURS)--BECOME SUCH A POWERFUL FIGURE IN THE MEDIA SPOTLIGHT--LOOK AT THIS AS WHAT IT IS ----IMUS APOOGIZED----SHARPTON HAD ANOTHER 15 MINS OF FAME AND CBS AND MNSBC HAS KEPT A LOT OF REVENUE IN THEIR POCKETS---AND THE RAP INDUSTRY WILL JUST LAUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK---WITH RACIAL--IMMORAL----SEXIST--ANTI-AMERICAN---GARBAGE BLASTING YOUNG AMERICANS--ADDING TO THE DEMISE OF THE REASONS AMERICA WAS FOUNDED

THINK ABOUT THAT ONE

Seven Machos said...

1. These kids today. What's the matter with them? Why can't they be like we were?

2. The above post should be deleted purely on aesthetic grounds.

3. When will crazy Internet posters understand the difference between government censorship and the exercise of property rights?

The Exalted said...

typical obsfucation of the issue - jesse jackson al sharpton blah death of the first amendment i hate liberals blah blah

only thing that matters -- did the comments of Imus rise to the level of a firing offense? if you don't think so, thats fine. but leave the rest out of it.

Revenant said...

only thing that matters -- did the comments of Imus rise to the level of a firing offense? if you don't think so, thats fine. but leave the rest out of it.

When we want your opinion about what "matters", Exalted, we'll let you know.

Personally I'm not "obfuscating" the issue of whether Imus should have been fired -- I just *don't care*. He's a jerk and I don't listen to his show. Whether he loses his job today or stays on the air in syndication for the next five hundred years makes no difference to me.

I'm talking about the Jackson/Sharpton angle because the fact that those two racist crooks are being taken serious IS interesting to me.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

The example that springs to mind is Jeff Foxworthy. He can do his thing in any Southern town to uproarious laughter but if the exact same routine were delivered by, say, a slick New Yorker, I have a hard time believing it would be well received.

The difference here is self-deprecating humor; I can make fun of myself in ways I would not allow you to.

Is that same premise for some folks to have the authority to use words banned for use by others?

Foxworthy has a bit he does about when people hear his accent they automatically deduct 20 IQ points. I hear it; I laugh. Could Chris Rock say the same thing and would I find it as humorous? I don't think so.

The difference is there is nothing inherently evil about an accent, as there is with certain words.

I have heard it said that blacks use the 'n' word to own it and thereby remove its sting, something i would call a sound tactic. How long until it works?

Another point on Sharpton/Jackson; who else is throwing the 'race weight' around these days? Both of these guys have been around for 40 years- is there another generation of media appointed leadership in the wings, or when these two drop off the face of the earth will taht be the end of this type of divisive gargbage?

Revenant said...

Foxworthy has a bit he does about when people hear his accent they automatically deduct 20 IQ points.

Or his bit about how the news always finds an idiot to interview when covering disasters in the South.

"It was pandelirium! I thought we'd be killed or even worse! I saw the Johnson's house go right up over our roof. All I could think was 'Caroline still has my casserole dish!'".

The best example of a comedian doing a routine that couldn't be done by a comedian of a different ethnicity is probably Chris Rock's "Racism" routine. Heck, I really don't think Rock should be doing that routine either, really.

John McAdams said...

I wish that meant that, in an even-handed way, nasty bigoted comments about (say) Christians or Jews would immediately get one fired.

But I don't think real tolerance has increased, overall.

TMink said...

Of course it still matters who says what. That is because some people are still mired in racism. Some guy talked about looking forward to the day when we are judged on our character, not our color.

They killed him.

Trey