Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I'd like to know what you would suggest be done to assure that no one were ever subject to the "sensitivity police." I can think of no solution to what you here identify as a problem which would not be scarier by far than the thought that someone's career is ruined because of the public perception of them, as fueled by the popular press.

I have no solution, so I can't suggest anything that could be done about it. But just because I don't have a solution, that doesn't make it ridiculous to say there's a problem.

Perhaps, but i'd say this has been a reality of public life, and something with which public figures have been obliged to deal, at least since Henry II wondered aloud in 1170: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and Thomas à Becket was murdered. Public figures have to take the consequences of what they say publicly.

Lincoln was able to paint Douglas into a corner because for many years in the Senate, Douglas had been making his political career within the Democratic Party by catering to the attitudes of slave state legislators. Imus has been peddling "unfunny" nasty remarks for years--it finally caught up with, just as Douglas' behavior caught up with him in 1858. I don't assert that this is justice, but it should come as no surprise to anyone in the public eye.

0 Replies

Thank you for the compliment, Thomas. It means a lot to me especially because it comes from you.

Loved the last article BumbleBee posted. It exposes the hypocrisy of almost everyone involved in this debacle, with the obvious exception of the Rutgers women.

I know this topic has been discussed to death, but I'm glad to see all the arguments. This is something that holds real importance in terms of our Constitutional rights. In this respect, it isn't some gossipy item to slather over on a slow news day; it is an important aspect of how far one should go vs how far one can go in terms of freedom of speech.
As Osso said, the arguments have been particularly good and there seems to be less animosity than usual, at least on this thread.

Oh happy day

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Perhaps, but i'd say this has been a reality of public life, and something with which public figures have been obliged to deal, at least since Henry II wondered aloud in 1170: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and Thomas à Becket was murdered. Public figures have to take the consequences of what they say publicly.

Yes, but 1) as I said, I'm not definding Imus. I'm worried about the sensitivity police. And 2) this sensitivity police doesn't just prosecute public figures. It doesn't even take great pains to make sure their adversaries actually said or did what they're being accused of having said or done. Witness the Duke Lacrosse rape case. It was pulled out of thin air, escalated into a national scandal about vicious white males victimizing helpless black females, and only then collapsed. It looks as if none of the pundids overeager to condemn the players will face any consequence for ruining (a year of) the Duke players' lives.

Again, I don't have any solution to this problem. But I do think it's a problem, and I'm not ready to just dismiss it with a laconic slogan such as "that's the way things go."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

the sensitivity police.

I find it telling that someone as sharp witted and outspoken as Thomas is taking steps to avoid the un-PC term PC Police in favor of sensitivity police.

(You're afraid of Deb, aren't cha? Razz

)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thomas wrote:
the sensitivity police.
I find it telling that someone as sharp witted and outspoken as Thomas is taking steps to avoid the un-PC term PC Police in favor of sensitivity police.

(You're afraid of Deb, aren't cha? )

No.

That is confined to the land of: "'T'were a consummation devoutly to be wished".

Or "If Only Land.....the crappiest kingdom of them all".

0 Replies

the duke rape case is a "red herring" imo .
there are certainly many rapes taking place ... and too many go unpunished !
should the reasoning be that since the duke case was a sham , rape crimes should not be pursued ?

perhaps my comments are inappropriate because i'm not fully informed about that case , but i doubt anyone can deny that there are too many cases of rape taking place .

i think it's difficult for young people growing up today , to understand that what they hear and see on radio , Tv , songs and movies is not always appropriate behaviour .

i'm even getting annoyed when i see car ads showing someone driving like a maniac and see in very small letters under the ad :
"professional driver - do not attempt" - so why are they showing the ad ?
(old man growling)
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

the duke rape case is a "red herring" imo .

In my opinion, it's the opposite case to Imus in terms of reality, but a parallel case for the sensitivity police. A bunch of young, white football players does not commit any crime. For reasons still unclear to me, a young black stripper wrongly accuses them of rape. An overeager district attorney prosecutes. Almost immediately, public opinion condemns the accused, without waiting for the outcome of the trial. The two cases are parallel for purposes of political correctness because the accused were white, and the presumed victims black. And it's an opposite case in terms of facts because Imus was guilty whereas the Duke players were innocent.

There is no way the Duke players would have been publically pre-condemned had they been black and the stripper white. And there is no way that the usual civil Black civil rights activists will now demand racial justice for the white Duke players.

In my opinion, that's why the Duke case is not a red herring in the discussion about Imus.

0 Replies

I don't know that race played a part there at all. I don't know that it didn't, but I am curious as to why you think it did? Was it the coverage, or something else? (I never look at the coverage of celebrity criminal allegations in the USA, because I am so utterly horrified at the manner in which these cases appear to be prosecuted in the media as much as in the courts in the US....I am accustomed to these things being sub judice).

This would seem to me to fall more into the celebrity hunting category.

I would think black athletes get as much of this sort of thing when accused of rape as white. Historically, of course, they would have got a lot more ****.

Can you elucidate re your reasoning?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

hamburger wrote:
the duke rape case is a "red herring" imo .

There is no way the Duke players would have been publically pre-condemned had they been black and the stripper white. And there is no way that the usual civil Black civil rights activists will now demand racial justice for the white Duke players.

Do you think the Duke players can go after Sharpton and Jackson for slander?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I don't know that race played a part there at all. I don't know that it didn't, but I am curious as to why you think it did? Was it the coverage, or something else?

It was the zeal of the prosecutor, and the coverage in the media. If you have a New York Times online subscription, I recommend that you search for "Duke Lacross" and check out the analysis and commentaries shortly after the story broke. They feature prominently the tension between rich, mostly white Duke university and the blue-collar, mostly black town of Durham, NC that surrounds it.

For details, I'd have to go back to these articles myself. I'll do it if it's important to you, but for now I'll stop.

CerealKiller wrote:

Do you think the Duke players can go after Sharpton and Jackson for slander?

I don't know. I also don't know that the Rutgers team is going after Imus for slander. To my knowedge, they have accepted his apology and moved on. As an aside, the Rutgers team, aged 20 or so on average, seems the by far the most mature group of people in this scandal. Which is sad, considering the purported grown-ups who created the mess.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

For details, I'd have to go back to these articles myself. I'll do it if it's important to you, but for now I'll stop.

CerealKiller wrote:
Do you think the Duke players can go after Sharpton and Jackson for slander?

I don't know. I also don't know that the Rutgers team is going after Imus for slander. To my knowedge, they have accepted his apology and moved on. As an aside, the Rutgers team, aged 20 or so on average, seems the by far the most mature group of people in this scandal. Which is sad, considering the purported grown-ups who created the mess.

Yeah but the Rutgers players weren't looking at 10 years in prison.

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

Yeah but the Rutgers players weren't looking at 10 years in prison.

I don't know that after the district attorney pressed charges, the Duke team did anything immature either. In the Duke case as in the Rutgers case, it was people twice the teams' age who made carnage out of common sense, due process, and plain basic decency.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

CerealKiller wrote:
Yeah but the Rutgers players weren't looking at 10 years in prison.

I don't know that after the district attorney pressed charges, the Duke team did anything immature either. In the Duke case as in the Rutgers case, it was people twice the teams' age who made carnage out of common sense, due process, and plain basic decency.

True.

But my point was that it is much easier to forgive and move on from insensitive remarks, than it is to move on when people are trying to railroad you into a jail cell.

0 Replies

I saw that discussion. I found it somewhat difficult to watch because I have a fair amount of respect for everyone involved in it and there were moments when consensus was very difficult to achieve because, I think, the values held by these folks were both sincere and defensible but which sprung from divergent experiences in the liviing the american life...divergent because of race and the experiences of being black in america. All are in the media elite, all well educated, intelligent, thoughtful and priviledged. But only one was african american.

I don't know how we can refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of that voice. I don't know how we can refuse to grant it a unique importance and a unique status as truth-bearing.

0 Replies

Well, I know of some people who would tell you that being african-american doesn't grant you any special insight or perspective or voice about issues specifically involving african americans. I had someone on this forum tell me that being an african american man gave me no better idea about how african american men are regarded in america. Still trips me out to this day...

0 Replies

If all blacks had exactly the same opinion, it would be valid.

0 Replies

If they were pristine creatures with no bias, personality quirks or fallibilities--it would be valid.

0 Replies

You wouldn't take my word for gospel about women's issues, would you?

0 Replies

I'd say you know more about being a woman than I. And that was my WHOLE point, in its ENTIRETY.

0 Replies

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know