0
   

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:31 pm
Okay. But that's not what I said, or what I meant.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:41 pm
snood wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe. But I think his being black is also enough for some people to vote for him without having a clue of who he is or what he thinks about anything.


Yes but most all candidates get a certain number of votes this way. Some people will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, some people vote for a candidate because he or she is good-looking. That's just the way it is in our country. How many of us even understand what the job is that these people are running for? We are not so strong in civics. Obama has no great advantage in being black.


Agreed. But I'm not as convinced as Snood may be that there is any great disadvantage in being black either.


That's a definite revision of what I said. I said he's black enough to keep some from voting from him. How you got "disadvantage" out of that emanates from in your head. I don't see those people who wouldn't vote for him because of that as any great loss.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 06:59 pm
I said what I meant. You used what I said to make a point that some blacks would vote for someone because they were black.

What I said was within the whole thread's theme about political correctness - especially the particular tangent about the "magic negro". What I said was that Obama didn't fit the "magic negro" mold, because he is black enough to be threatening enough to some whites that they wouldn't support him.

What you then brought up is neither here nor there. Some blacks will vote for only blacks, some whites for only whites (and I guess it could be extrapolated out to women and Latinos, etc). If you see something more here, be my guest and expound on. I'm sure you will anyway. I have no further opinion about the validity of your point as related to mine.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 07:29 pm
snood wrote:
I first heard the term "magic negro" right after The Green Mile came out, in reference to Michael Clark Duncan's ever-forgiving, nauseatingly uplifting role. I happen to think there's something to the belief that the "magic negro" archetype might have a balming effect on white guilt, albeit not something consciously intended by the authors.

I think Obama is far too dynamic and relevant a figure to fit the "magic negro" mold, though. The magic negro's race isn't threatening to anyone white. Obama's clearly is.


While I don't doubt that some whites are threatened by Obama, I also don't doubt that some blacks are threatened by Hilary Clinton.

Obama is, perhaps, the least threatening (to Whites) black politician in America which is, sadly enough, one of the reasons the Sharptons of the world question his "realness."

It's not difficult to understand how presenting a threat to whites may have become an important element of "real blackness," but it guarantees that no "real" black will ever be elected to the office of the presidency.

Again, quite a modern social dilemma. A black person in the White House would seem to indicate a sharp decline in American racism, and wide acceptance of black Americans as equal citizens. However, some blacks who claim to be devoted to bringing such a state of being to reality are now arguing that a black man who has a real chance of accomplishing it is not "really" black.

Al Sharpton is never going to be president of the United States. Anyone who insists that whites should be willing to vote for Al Sharpton for president are dimwits.

I would never vote for Sharpton for president.

Does this make me a racist? I don't think so because the color of his skin has nothing to do with my refusal to ever vote for him.

He lack of integrity does, but that has nothing to do with his being black.

His basic politics do, but that has nothing to do with his being black.

His singular focus on "black issues" does, and that has something to do with him being black.

I want a president who will promote equality among American citizens. I have no intention, however, of voting for someone who places the uniques interests of black Americans over the interest of Americans of other races. Why should I?

I'm not wracked with "white guilt." I don't think it is fundamental that in order to advance the equality of back American citizens I, as a White man, needs to make sacrifices.

The threat that Obama represents to me is the threat of a Liberal.

I will not vote for a white Liberal, and I think it would be patronizing of me to vote for a black Liberal.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:09 pm
snood wrote:
I said what I meant. You used what I said to make a point that some blacks would vote for someone because they were black.

What I said was within the whole thread's theme about political correctness - especially the particular tangent about the "magic negro". What I said was that Obama didn't fit the "magic negro" mold, because he is black enough to be threatening enough to some whites that they wouldn't support him.

What you then brought up is neither here nor there. Some blacks will vote for only blacks, some whites for only whites (and I guess it could be extrapolated out to women and Latinos, etc). If you see something more here, be my guest and expound on. I'm sure you will anyway. I have no further opinion about the validity of your point as related to mine.


I accept that's what you meant though in the context in which you said it, I didn't take it that way.

My comments, however, were neither to question nor criticize your remarks but rather to add my own observations. So sorry. I keep forgetting that I shouldn't do that with you. I'll try to watch it in the future.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:26 pm
Nobody, and certainly not me, has anything against you "adding your observations". That's dramatizing and personalizing needlessly. You tried to juxtapose your comments with mine, and I "added my observation" that one had little to do with the other. It won't twist itself into much else unless you twist it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 03:42 pm
Nappy headed ho's.
Damn!

Bastard.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 03:45 pm
I don't think people should lose their jobs over stuff like this--but his audience should dwindle to nothing.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 03:51 pm
Lash wrote:
Nappy headed ho's.
Damn!

Bastard.
Shocked WTF was he thinking? Laughing That's so far beyond stupid, I laughed out loud. It must be two decades since Cosell lost his job for such idiocy… and he was widely considered the best in the business.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 04:08 pm
I really can't believe he said it--but I guess if you talk off the cuff for hours a day every day--you're bound to say somethng stupid.

But, calling the women's team HO's. That pisses me off. Of course, there's a thousand people rapping it 24/7. I'm pissed at MYSELF for not being as pissed at THEM.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 04:21 pm
True. There are so many nicer ways to get your point across... now shake that asssss bitch and let me see what you got... Shake that asssss...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 04:25 pm
I'll kill you! LOL
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 04:34 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 08:03 am
Wow.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 05:09 am
I just listened to Imus this morning. He went on for ten minutes, about how "nothing he can say will justify" what he said, but that he wishes people knew the "context", and knew what kind of person he is and how he and his wife conduct themselves (and "with whom they conduct it" - - I think he meant some of his best friends are black).

He said he didn't think anything he said could change how "repulsive" were the statements he made...
He said he's met with Harold Ford several times and that Al Sharpton had (I couldn't help but stifle a little laugh here, knowing his previous references to Sharpton) "graciously" asked him to appear on his radio show...

Jeez, I kinda felt sorry for the poor schmoe. Kinda.


Here's something from a blog of Huffingtonpost:

My mother is a media-savvy woman. She's watched the politicians come and go on his show, kowtowing, laughing it up. She knows Imus is not going to go gently into that good night. But these comments are so ugly. So diminishing. So hurtful. The kind you can't take back. The kind of thing you say on the air, and there should be instant karma--direct pain to the mouth, or to the place inside one's head that says its OK to say these things out loud, for these women are the kind we can spit on and not feel any repercussion.

It is not OK to sit like a coward in one's studio and speak such poison into the airwaves. I hope, for a moment, Imus might take a moment to sit with the fact that he is in the wrong here, and then take another moment to put himself in these womens' impressively-hard-to-fill shoes.

So, I'm afraid to say that I still don't have an explanation for my mom as to why Imus still has a job. Other than the one we already know: in America, no one gets fired for hurting and disparaging black women. Ever.

Thank you, Gregory Lee and the National Association of Black Journalists and all others who have spoken out against Mr. Imus, and have demanded his dismissal. An apology was a start. But it can't be the end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-parker-aab/trying-to-explain-to-my-m_b_45275.html
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:23 am
Lash wrote:
Nappy headed ho's.
Damn!

Bastard.


Maybe I'm way out of line here, but I just can't get upset over this one. Was it obviously malicious or something?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:26 am
I don't think you're out of line, but I think you might be a little out of touch if you can't relate to why this one is upsetting.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:29 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Lash wrote:
Nappy headed ho's.
Damn!

Bastard.


Maybe I'm way out of line here, but I just can't get upset over this one. Was it obviously malicious or something?


No, I don't think it wasn't malicious. It was typical Imus humor that strayed waaaaaaay too far over the line. I'm the anti-political correctness crusader, remember, and it was offensive to me. Smile

I'm of the school, however, that people who do or say really stupid things when there is no malicious intent are wise and appropriate to apologize for these things, and then we move to the forgive as we want to be forgiven policy. Imus is a prim and prissy stick up the butt prude compared to Howard Stern, for instance, and people forgive Howard all the time.

Imus should take his verbal lashing and then we should all move on.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:33 am
Just like with Michael Richards, after they give an apology and it seems to be meant, I won't still be calling for anyone's head on a spit. That's just me. I also won't be judging too harshly those who might get more bent out of shape about his words than I am getting. Especially if they're black women, to whom this might feel a little more raw.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 09:47 am
snood wrote:
Just like with Michael Richards, after they give an apology and it seems to be meant, I won't still be calling for anyone's head on a spit. That's just me. I also won't be judging too harshly those who might get more bent out of shape about his words than I am getting. Especially if they're black women, to whom this might feel a little more raw.


I just don't see it as anywhere near the Michael Richards situation. I'm curious, does anyone know if the women on the basketball team were actually offended? Though I can see how some people might take offense, I don't think he is or was being racist.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 11:31:13