FreeDuck wrote:That's not the way you responded, though. You responded as if I had said that you were bubbling over with white guilt and bowing down to Sharpton. In fact, nothing I wrote was about you at all.
No, that's false--i responded as though you were claiming that i had suggested that Imus should bow down to Sharpton because of "white guilt." I had not in fact said anything about how Imus should behave, and resented the implication that i approved of him "bowing down" to Sharpton because of "white guilt."
Quote:That's all you had to say in the first place then, right? And nothing I said was "snotty" unless you assumed I was talking about you.
It was snotty for you to suggest that Imus was "bowing down" to Sharpton, and that he was motivated by "white guilt." It was snotty to suggest inferentially from my post that i would approve of that.
Quote:I think I've been pretty clear that is exactly what I'm saying -- at least that it's not a big enough deal to get the attention it's getting.
I could not agree less.
Quote:That's a convenient reconstruction of my argument.
That's no reconstruction at all. In fact, you wrote, in post #2603719:
FreeDuck wrote:I disagree. I think it was insulting to the women on the Rutgers basketball team, but that's about it. It wasn't an attack on women and it wasn't an attack against black people.
You specifically stated that it was not an attack on women, and not an attack on black people. I've never heard anyone but women referred to as "hos," and it is a expression taken from black urban slang, with a history of denigrating women. Despite what Lash has written, i've never heard any reference to "nappy head" in any other context than a reference to black people.
Quote:You claimed that his remarks "attacked black people" and "attacked women". I say THAT'S bullshit. As to the pattern, I've already said that snood's post DOES indicate a pattern of something, racist generalizations being one of them.
If his remarks were not specific to women, why did he say "hos?" If his comments were not specific to black people, why did he refer to "nappy heads?" I can think of few contentions more absurd than that his remark does not attack women and black people.
Quote:Which terms were racist and sexist -- hos or nappy-headed -- and why? I'm asking the question (for about the third time) because I'm undecided (despite your convenient misrepresentation of my argument) whether the words themselves are racist or sexist. I have said and will continue to say that, in my opinion, they don't rise to the level of the hooplah that has stemmed from them. You seem to agree with that when stated by others. So why is your back up?
I've explained why the use of "hos" and "nappy headed" are respectively sexist and racist terms--and i think you only deny it because you are attempting to defend a weak argument. This is at least three times, and i think more, that i've given this explanation. I did not misrepresent your argument, i've quoted it above--you specifically said in that post, and continue to say in this post, that the remarks are not directed at women and blacks. As for the "hooplah," when someone has a nationally syndicated radio program,
that creates the hooplah, not my comments. My back is not up, but i am disgusted that you continue to try to suggest that Imus' comment was relatively innocent, and continue to attempt to advance a ridiculous argument that the remark was not sexist and racist. I have not agreed that the "hooplah" is unwarranted by the character of the remark--i have simply observed that this likely will not have the repercussions for Imus and his corporate sponsors that such a remark deserves. I condemn what he said, and him for saying it, but i'm not so foolish as not to see the pragmatic side of this, which is that in the continuing sexist and racist climate of this country, he'll probably not only get away with it, he'll probably even experience an increase in ratings. That doesn't by any means suggest that i think the "hooplah" is overblown.
