Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't think the racial element is anything to get upset about, seeing as these same girls will go right on buying CDs full of the same statements for the rest of their lives.

That was an exquisitely stupid remark. How, exactly, do you assert that you have a reasonable basis to claim that all of the women in question are consumers of "gansta rap," and upon what reasonable basis do you assert that they will be for the rest of their lives?

0 Replies

thomas

Jespah! JESPAH!!

It ain't that big of a thing. But it IS a thing.

We'll note that it wasn't 'the state' that came down on Imus but rather folks in the community voicing their perceived interests followed by a corporate entity worried about business ramifications to the uproar. Isn't that your preferred model?

I won't argue that the media representatives and the aristopundits aren't acting like serious assholes here. One could offer up a pretty compelling portrait of scapegoatism and "see how we clean our own house" hypocrisy in all this, not to mention their tendency to move like a shackled group of dim canadian tourists when someone throws a stinkbomb in their midst, and not to mention their common cowardice in what sorts of stories they fail to cover.

But Imus is getting punished for something entirely deserving of punishment.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think the racial element is anything to get upset about, seeing as these same girls will go right on buying CDs full of the same statements for the rest of their lives.

That was an exquisitely stupid remark. How, exactly, do you assert that you have a reasonable basis to claim that all of the women in question are consumers of "gansta rap," and upon what reasonable basis do you assert that they will be for the rest of their lives?

Set is entirely correct here, cyclo.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think the racial element is anything to get upset about, seeing as these same girls will go right on buying CDs full of the same statements for the rest of their lives.

That was an exquisitely stupid remark. How, exactly, do you assert that you have a reasonable basis to claim that all of the women in question are consumers of "gansta rap," and upon what reasonable basis do you assert that they will be for the rest of their lives?

Who said anything about 'gangsta rap?' Racial slurs such as the one used, and sexist slurs, are riddled throughout all sorts of music favored by the African-American culture and have been for some time, whether it be soul, hip-hip, or R&B. I have extensive experience with this having grown up in a rough part of Houston.

I know that you are a demon to argue against when it comes to statements such as this, Set, and I don't want to go down that road; let us just say that members of their community, if not they personally, will go on buying music which demeans their sex and race in perpetuity. I see no reason to believe that a currently existing trend will change. I am not a supporter of Imus in the slightest and I really have no dog in this fight whatsover; just think that Sharpton and Jackson should examine the beam in their own eye, before knocking others for saying the same things the members of their own community, the ones held up as the highest achievers, say continually.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I know that you are a demon to argue against when it comes to statements such as this, Set, and I don't want to go down that road; let us just say that members of their community, if not they personally, will go on buying music which demeans their sex and race in perpetuity.

Translation: You don't want to argue the point, but you want to attempt to make the point again, after having asserted at completely bogus anecdotal basis for your claim. You lived in a rough Houston neighborhood, huh? And that means you know what music these women like to listen to, and will for the rest of their lives--"in perpetuity?'

Horseshit. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I relish the company of an educated slut.

Mustard.

0 Replies

Uhm . . . not that kind of relish, Sweetiepie Girl . . .

0 Replies

While I am a fan of Senator Obama, here is another one of those cases of backhanded hypocrisy. Imus has been a shock jock using the same kinds of politically incorrect humor, racial, sexist, homophobic, etc. etc, the entire time and he has aimed his barbs as the entire cultural, social, and political spectrum. And Obama went on his show.

Now that Imus is in the crosshairs of negative public opinion, Obama joins the pack of attack dogs.

Quote:

SOURCE

0 Replies

Set

Setanta wrote:

Uhm . . . not that kind of relish, Sweetiepie Girl . . .

Somebody smack Setanta on the side of his head for calling ehbeth a "sweetiepie girl." Such lascivious language is a violation of the TOS.

BBB

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
seeing as these same girls will go right on buying CDs full of the same statements for the rest of their lives.

let us just say that members of their community, if not they personally, will go on buying music which demeans their sex and race in perpetuity.

these same girls / not they personally

Fine fine work.

~~~~~

So, is anyone who used to listen to Imus not going to listen to him now?

Is anyone who didn't listen to him going to start listening?

~~~~~

Why couldn't they just let his market share drop off naturally as he becomes more and more irrelevant - and then his advertising'll drop off - and he'll vanish of his employer's accord. This is all just making him too much of a martyr for his gang.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
I know that you are a demon to argue against when it comes to statements such as this, Set, and I don't want to go down that road; let us just say that members of their community, if not they personally, will go on buying music which demeans their sex and race in perpetuity.

Translation: You don't want to argue the point, but you want to attempt to make the point again, after having asserted at completely bogus anecdotal basis for your claim. You lived in a rough Houston neighborhood, huh? And that means you know what music these women like to listen to, and will for the rest of their lives--"in perpetuity?'

Horseshit. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Like I said, I don't wish to argue the point with you precisely to avoid posts such as this. I don't claim my anecdotal evidence to be dispositive evidence proving the case. You are free to agree or disagree with me if you want; it's nothing to me either way.

Let us remove the specific women from this, as it seems to be the crux of your argument; where are Sharpton and Jackson's calls for censorship amongst their own people, who use terms as bad as these and much worse continually, and what more are celebrated for doing so? I would be happy to see them put as much effort into getting 50 cent taken off of the radio as Imus, but we all know that this will never happen.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
seeing as these same girls will go right on buying CDs full of the same statements for the rest of their lives.

let us just say that members of their community, if not they personally, will go on buying music which demeans their sex and race in perpetuity.

these same girls / not they personally

Fine fine work.

<grumble>

Fine, I shouldn't have said 'these same girls.' I should have said 'unless they are completely unrepresentative of their community, these same girls.'

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Completely unrepresentative of their community? All black people only listen to rap and hip hop which is demeaning to women? None of them listen to classical music, none of them listen to jazz, none of them listen to R & B, none of them listen to "world beat?"

Here, let me take that shovel away from you, so that you can't dig that hole so deeply and so quickly.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Completely unrepresentative of their community? All black people only listen to rap and hip hop which is demeaning to women? None of them listen to classical music, none of them listen to jazz, none of them listen to R & B, none of them listen to "world beat?"

Here, let me take that shovel away from you, so that you can't dig that hole so deeply and so quickly.

Thanks.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

In an ideal world, there would just be no market for Imus's brand of entertainment. And maybe that's the way it's going now. I don't think the comment should have generated as much hooplah as it did, but I don't think losing Imus from the airwaves is any loss. So it goes...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

thomas

Jespah! JESPAH!!

It ain't that big of a thing. But it IS a thing.

In your opinion, is it valid front page news for the New York Times? Is it worth the attention of US Senators, who could otherwise pay attention to Iraq or healthcare? Is it a worthy target of civil rights activists, who could be marching for the homeless instead? If it is, let's see if Al Sharpton marches for my rights when I tell him that I as a German find "Hogan's Heroes" offensive and stereotypical. I bet he'll petition whatever TV station re-runs the show to take it off the air.

blatham wrote:

We'll note that it wasn't 'the state' that came down on Imus but rather folks in the community voicing their perceived interests followed by a corporate entity worried about business ramifications to the uproar. Isn't that your preferred model?

It is. I'm all for this enforcement mechanism of social mores. I disagree with the apparent social mores on this point, although I respect society's right to have a mores disagreeable to me.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think the racial element is anything to get upset about, seeing as these same girls will go right on buying CDs full of the same statements for the rest of their lives.

That was an exquisitely stupid remark. How, exactly, do you assert that you have a reasonable basis to claim that all of the women in question are consumers of "gansta rap," and upon what reasonable basis do you assert that they will be for the rest of their lives?

Set is entirely correct here, cyclo.

Word.

I agree it isn't an issue for government, Thomas, and also that the private sector has taken care of business on it's own. Were I his employer; I'd have fired him too. When idiotic statements result in sponsors pulling out; that is an appropriate decision regardless of the morality and I'd say his firing is simply a reflection of Supply and Demand. The system works.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Were I his employer; I'd have fired him too. When idiotic statements result in sponsors pulling out; that is an appropriate decision regardless of the morality and I'd say his firing is simply a reflection of Supply and Demand. The system works.

Well the system works in delivering to the stakeholders what they want. Which is fine so far, just as you say.

I'm just puzzled by what the stakeholders want. I saw Imus for the first time in November 2006, at Blatham's, after the elections that went so well. Imus was a bastard back then. He was foul-mouthed back then. For all I know, he'd been a foul-mouthed bastard ever since MSNBC started co-broadcasting his radio show 11 years ago. So why, after an eleven-year tenure, are the stakeholders suddenly discovering that this foul-mouthed bastard is spewing out foul-mouthed bastard statements? Why, after eleven years, are they suddenly taking offense at them? That's what I don't get.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Were I his employer; I'd have fired him too. When idiotic statements result in sponsors pulling out; that is an appropriate decision regardless of the morality and I'd say his firing is simply a reflection of Supply and Demand. The system works.

Well the system works in delivering to the stakeholders what they want. Which is fine so far, just as you say.

I'm just puzzled by what the stakeholders want. I saw Imus for the first time in November 2006, at Blatham's, after the elections that went so well. Imus was an idiot back then. He was foul-mouthed back then. For all I know, he'd been a foul-mouthed idiot ever since MSNBC started co-broadcasting his radio show 11 years ago. So why, after an eleven-year tenure, are the stakeholders suddenly discovering that this foul-mouthed idiot is spewing out foul-mouthed idiot statements? Why, after eleven years, are they suddenly taking offense at them? That's what I don't get.

Because this time the customers got mad. Seems like a simple business decision to me. Less popular= less valuable. They acted accordingly.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

. . . although I respect society's right to have a mores disagreeable to me.

Mores is taken directly from the Latin, and is a plural noun for which there is no corresponding singular noun (which is mos in Latin). Therefore, you would not usually use an article with the noun mores, and certainly not a singular indefinite article. I'm not saying this to be a prick, just so you can improve your English.

Of course, if you would rather think of me as a prick, i'll try to do my best not to disappoint you.

0 Replies

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know