The land of the free and the home of the brave.

Who ever is interested in witnessing, first-hand, how a supposed free society censors dissent and limits the expression of opinion, one can only watch the most recent events concerning a radio shock-jock Imus.

The system allows the “free” expression of ideas just as long as they do not exceed a certain unacceptable point after which the infraction is chastised and punished with communal quarantine or expulsion.

The system is interested in maintaining cohesion and harmony and so all must be made to feel accepted and worthy of respect.
Anything or anybody that makes this cohesion and harmony less likely or that exposes the underlying bullshit and hypocrisy behind all the culturally enforced respect and “civility” will be and is made to feel the heat.

Here we see the effects produced by the loss of self-censoring and when self-repression fails to contain inner feelings and opinions which are culturally and socially “unacceptable” – of course what is morally and intellectually “unacceptable” changes with every age and in every generation making political-correctness a periodic symptom of cultural disease.

The system, in the more sophisticated west, doesn’t utilize overt force or censoring but uses more subtle means of mind-control, hanging in-effigy any trespasser as an example to anyone that dares to speak an honest word that does not adhere to the norm.

The same can be said for any scientific insight – as science has replaced, in most minds, the comforting, inebriating necessity of religion.
The separation of Church and State is still an incomplete ideal yet nobody even considers the separation of State and Science as a way of ensuring unbiased insights into human nature and the human condition.

As a bedfellow of institutional power – which it hypothetically is supposed to provide a check and critical balance for – the media, especially in the U.S.A., shows itself to be nothing more than an extension of whatever powers exist.
Their pretense as ‘free-press’ and their hypocritical objectivity is exposed in instances, like these, or in more glaring events like the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

The lack of reaction in the populations that are kept docile and stupid enough to not care or to be ignorant of all the issues at hand, is evidence of the system’s success in controlling opinions and in shaping mental dispositions.

John Kenneth Galbraith provides an interesting perspective into how desires and needs are socially constructed and into how a nation, such as the U.S.A. retains credibility and relevance despite its glaring contradictions and arrogant duplicity.
It is an insight into how minds are controlled in this our modern-age.

The land of the free and the home of the brave.

Who ever is interested in witnessing, first-hand, how a supposed free society censors dissent and limits the expression of opinion, one can only watch the most recent events concerning a radio shock-jock Imus.

The system allows the “free” expression of ideas just as long as they do not exceed a certain unacceptable point after which the infraction is chastised and punished with communal quarantine or expulsion.


i'm sorry to hear that you find it offensive that the FCC won't allow words like god damn, mother fucker, bastard, nigger, and queer to pollute our airwaves.

i'm sorry to hear that you find it offensive that the FCC won't allow words like god damn, mother fucker, bastard, nigger, and queer to pollute our airwaves.

Can I freely express myself by hitting Satyr over the head with a baseball bat?

No?

Why not?


Can I ask someone else to do it for me? C'mon, they are just words!


The mistake that the writers of the Constitution made was to think that future generations would possess their wisdom, and not take these rights to such outrageous ends. It is amusing to me that the people who wave the constitution with the most fervor are the anarchists on one side, and the lovers of theocracy on the other. Go figure.



Edit: I misspelled the word "on". :bawl:

Well, I don't know how to view that issue. It's always so complex. Imus was, in fact, free to make the comments he did ...and he made them.

But weren't the others also free to make the comments about Imus' comments as well? And since there were more of them, including some pretty powerful figures, whose free speech "won" the battle of the free speech?

The Rutgers supporters were using their own free speech to protest Imus' comments. There were enough of them to prompt the producers of the Imus Show to chastise Imus for the comments ...using their own free speech in order to do it.

It seems that people are free to make their comments, but once those comments have been made, don't others have the rights of free speech to chastise the other for using his free speech to say things that they don't like. As I said, perhaps it's like "The Battle of Free Speeches"? They fight it out to see who wins?

Baron Max

sometime back, about 10 years or so, someone tried to say it was "freedom of speech" that he shot his roommate for snoring too loud and keeping him awake at night.

swivel,
permission granted, need my uzi?

sometime back, about 10 years or so, someone tried to say it was "freedom of speech" that he shot his roommate for snoring too loud and keeping him awake at night.

swivel,
permission granted, need my uzi?

Nope, check my skills:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc8pTpZgu_I

i'm sorry to hear that you find it offensive that the FCC won't allow words like god damn, mother fucker, bastard, nigger, and queer to pollute our airwaves.Is anyone going do anything about your offensive language?

I’m appalled.

Can I freely express myself by hitting Satyr over the head with a baseball bat?Of course, because then I can tear your face off.
See how it works?

Even a lion exhibits restrain even without the F.C.C.

No?

Why not?Are you answering your own questions now, and calling it debate?

Living with the consequences of one’s own actions isn’t a human invention nor does it demand a moral and constitutional amendment.

Who says you could “hit me over the head with a baseball bat”?

The mistake that the writers of the Constitution made was to think that future generations would possess their wisdom, and not take these rights to such outrageous ends. It is amusing to me that the people who wave the constitution with the most fervor are the anarchists on one side, and the lovers of theocracy on the other. Go figure.Define “outrageous” and then explain from where your sense of the “outrageous” comes from.


Baron Max
Well, I don't know how to view that issue. It's always so complex. Imus was, in fact, free to make the comments he did ...and he made them.

But weren't the others also free to make the comments about Imus' comments as well? And since there were more of them, including some pretty powerful figures, whose free speech "won" the battle of the free speech?

The Rutgers supporters were using their own free speech to protest Imus' comments. There were enough of them to prompt the producers of the Imus Show to chastise Imus for the comments ...using their own free speech in order to do it.

It seems that people are free to make their comments, but once those comments have been made, don't others have the rights of free speech to chastise the other for using his free speech to say things that they don't like. As I said, perhaps it's like "The Battle of Free Speeches"? They fight it out to see who wins?

Baron MaxSurvival of the glibbest.


leopold99
sometime back, about 10 years or so, someone tried to say it was "freedom of speech" that he shot his roommate for snoring too loud and keeping him awake at night.I was never aware that shooting someone in the head and speaking were the same thing.
Huh.

I don’t know what type of fantasies you have or how you would use your freedom but I know is that if you are cold enough to kill someone for snoring then the roommate is stupid enough not to see it.

Define “outrageous” and then explain from where your sense of the “outrageous” comes from.

Hmm, maybe anything that falls outside the "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"?

Survival of the glibbest.

No, it's more like it's always been ...the more people you have on your side, the more likely it is that you'll "win".

But most people can't see that the issue/the ideal of "free speech" is exactly what Imus used in order to make his comments. Those who are upset and up in arms about his comments are, maybe without even knowing it, trying to limit the ideal of free speech.

Was anyone actually harmed in any way?

Baron Max

Hum.. Baron & Satyr... together... I never thought it would ever happen in the same post.. who do I believe in more?! I usually like Satyr's long comments and reasoning, Baron makes me feel calmer and more composed... ummm I'm not sure.

Who says you could “hit me over the head with a baseball bat”?



You know, "Freedom of EXPRESSION". It covers things like burning flags. Like public nudity. Like displaying paintings of aborted fetuses. Where have you been the past 50 years? You really think "Freedom of Speech" has anything to do with speech?

Maybe somebody got to you with a Louisville Slugger before I could.


Hilarious that a person who goes by Satyr can't detect irony! The problem with the Imus case is simple: people are trying to shut Imus up. That is wrong. Just as it would be wrong to shut up the people trying to shut Imus up. As Baron said, both sides should be able to say what they want, the DIFFERENCE is that Imus isn't trying to tell the fascists that they can't criticize him. He welcomes their arguments (of course, he publicly cowers to save his job).

It is always the fascist LEFT that is trying to restrict free speech, and they do it in the name of free speech. It boggles the mind. For instance, the Dixie Chicks made political statements a few years ago. All's fair so far. Then, some radio stations decided to not play the Dixie Chicks in their own form of protest. Again, we are still fair. BUT, then the fascist left tried to use the force of government law to coerce those radio stations into playing something they didn't want to play. And they said that the Dixie Chick's right to free speech was being violated. How backwards! The radio stations weren't following the Dixie Chicks around and stopping them from saying anything, they were just expressing their displeasure (and their listener's displeasure) by not playing their music. It was the Left that was coercing, or abridging free speech.

And in the Imus case, it is again the Left which is robbing someone of their free speech, just as the Right worked to shut down that other NY shock-jock. You know, the one with the moppish hair and big nose? That guy. People only want free speech if you agree with their ideology. Hypocrites.

For the record, I hate Imus with a passion. He is not funny, has a grating voice, and is hideously ugly. I do not listen to any talk radio. Period. That is my way of not being offended. I also do not listen to country music. None. And I think that free speech was intended to keep the government from forcing compliance on the people, the way the British Crown was fond of doing. Our current interpretation is bullshit.

When did we win the freedom to insult entire groups of people for $$$? It's a college basketball team. Why should a dried out puke like Imus be allowed to say such nasty things about young college women? For money? Should we encourage it? Is this a pretext to making all hatespeech and unearned insults everyday acceptable language? I know the racists want nothing more than to have the 'freedom' to spit epithets at whomever they wish but where is the freedom to not have to be assaulted with such nastiness? These aren't politicians or rowdy stars that Imus targeted, but young college women.
Imus is sleaze and will always have an audience of cheerleaders in this country. Just shows how backward and ignorant Americans want to be.

When did we win the freedom to insult entire groups of people...

I think it's written in the Constitution of the United States of America ...so that was about 1778, I think. You should read it sometime, you'd enjoy it.

Why should a dried out puke like Imus be allowed to say such nasty things about young college women?

You can find even nastier things being said about President Bush right here at sciforums. In fact, I think you've said some pretty nasty things about him, haven't you?

I'm still, seriously, trying to figure out who was harmed by Imus' comments? And if just a few nasty comments can harm someone, what does that say about them and their own self-worth?

Tell me who was actually harmed, then maybe we can talk about it.

Baron Max

This reminds me of something I read recently Satyr (can't remember where).

There was a backlash in the West 'in favor of free expression' when Muhammed was depicted in that cartoon. And in good ol' America, you have this indignation and revulsion at Imus (and Kramer, though he was just plain stupid). I make no effort to gauge whether his comments should be censored or not; I merely note the consistency. Ah. Now I remember. It was that Europeans censor and jail Holocaust deniers and yet demand the right to ridicule a 'global' religious figure.

There's something rotten..

The land of the free and the home of the brave.

Who ever is interested in witnessing, first-hand, how a supposed free society censors dissent and limits the expression of opinion, one can only watch the most recent events concerning a radio shock-jock Imus.

The system allows the “free” expression of ideas just as long as they do not exceed a certain unacceptable point after which the infraction is chastised and punished with communal quarantine or expulsion.

The system is interested in maintaining cohesion and harmony and so all must be made to feel accepted and worthy of respect.
Anything or anybody that makes this cohesion and harmony less likely or that exposes the underlying bullshit and hypocrisy behind all the culturally enforced respect and “civility” will be and is made to feel the heat.

Here we see the effects produced by the loss of self-censoring and when self-repression fails to contain inner feelings and opinions which are culturally and socially “unacceptable” – of course what is morally and intellectually “unacceptable” changes with every age and in every generation making political-correctness a periodic symptom of cultural disease.

The system, in the more sophisticated west, doesn’t utilize overt force or censoring but uses more subtle means of mind-control, hanging in-effigy any trespasser as an example to anyone that dares to speak an honest word that does not adhere to the norm.

The same can be said for any scientific insight – as science has replaced, in most minds, the comforting, inebriating necessity of religion.
The separation of Church and State is still an incomplete ideal yet nobody even considers the separation of State and Science as a way of ensuring unbiased insights into human nature and the human condition.

As a bedfellow of institutional power – which it hypothetically is supposed to provide a check and critical balance for – the media, especially in the U.S.A., shows itself to be nothing more than an extension of whatever powers exist.
Their pretense as ‘free-press’ and their hypocritical objectivity is exposed in instances, like these, or in more glaring events like the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

The lack of reaction in the populations that are kept docile and stupid enough to not care or to be ignorant of all the issues at hand, is evidence of the system’s success in controlling opinions and in shaping mental dispositions.

John Kenneth Galbraith provides an interesting perspective into how desires and needs are socially constructed and into how a nation, such as the U.S.A. retains credibility and relevance despite its glaring contradictions and arrogant duplicity.
It is an insight into how minds are controlled in this our modern-age.

Oh, it's fu**in Satyr. I'm glad he's just exposed himself for the idiot he is.

I'll tell you what. Give me your real name, the location where you work and/or look for work, a popular radio station in your area, and the freedom to say on air that you like to suck your own cock and eat your own shit, in order to quench your thirst and satisfy your hunger, respectively.

I just had to peek at BM's post:rolleyes: You think criticizing a wildly unpopular, arrogant and obstinate President is equal to what Imus said about the Rutgers girls?!:bugeye: Bush is a politician. Look it up. Politician. In an arena where political battles and criticism are the norm. Lives are at stake at times when countering a President and his reckless policies.
A rightist nutjob on the air referring to college women athletes as he did is in no way comparable. They lost a game. Not a war. These young college women should be on the same level as Bush in the critique, insult department? Your wiring is even more primitive than I thought.

It is always the fascist LEFT that is trying to restrict free speech, and they do it in the name of free speech. It boggles the mind. For instance, the Dixie Chicks made political statements a few years ago. All's fair so far. Then, some radio stations decided to not play the Dixie Chicks in their own form of protest.God—the more I "look into" [their] reasoning, the more I'm repelled and disgusted. In this case, it wasn't "free speech" that was denied of the Right's "freedom of expression" in reaction to the Dixie Chicks' stint in London, but their questionable ethics of contempt, revenge, and excommunication. Their freedom of expression was born out of malicious intent—they did not so much express an opinion of rebuttal, but were determined to destroy the Chicks' career.

Yawn.

But Satyr at times tends to pick the off-colored example and paints much too often with a wide brush from too on high. No wonder the little people have such a hard time reading him.

Here's an example that hits closer to home:

The system allows the “free” expression of ideas just as long as they do not exceed a certain unacceptable point......after which the infraction is chastised and punished with communal quarantine or expulsion.Hear the one about the Northwest Airlines' pilot who was removed from his plane and flown home pending further investigation for having a fucking argument on his cell phone?? So he was pissed off—as we often are these days in all quarters of society, since there's so much to get pissed off on, right? And he used strong language to freely express himself—and when do we not use strong language when we're pissed off?? Isn't that when strong language is most bloody effective?? So passengers were boarding the plane while he was obviously oblivious to their presence—as is usually the case when we're completely absorbed into something else: duh. And passengers were... miffed?? insulted?? Prudes! I mean, come on! He was having a private conversation and in this day and age self-consciousness on the cell phone in public is practically non-existent. But the flight was cancelled? the plane grounded?? Absurd. Totally ridiculous. Do you realize how much it costs an airline to park at a terminal? And passengers were uprooted, rounded up, and redistributed on other flights and given meals and hotel accommodations—and then were apologized to?? What? Blue-blooded Americans? So the pilot's career is now possibly... destroyed??

Only in America, sweetheart.

I hear ya, man ... oh, what an outrage! Some guy on the radio refered to members of a basketball team as "ho's"! What is this world coming to? Surely we are in the last days! Oh, the horror of it all!

Poor, poor Mr. Imus. All around him in 21st century America he hears the cacophony of contemporary "music" bleating sentiments equating womenfolk with "hos." Seeking refuge from the braying banalities of pop "music," poor, poor Mr. Imus turns on the idiot box only to be subjugated to a ceaseless stream of "music" videos inundating poor, poor Mr. Imus with more nursery rhymes analogizing females and "hos." How does he manage to endure such tribulation?

Poor, poor Mr. Imus - a product of his environment. He utters a statement regurgitating what he has had drilled into his head repeatedly throughout his waking hours and now he is being crucified afresh while the purveyors and facilitators of the "music" which indoctrinated poor, poor Mr. Imus smugly go about ejaculating their ceaseless gospel of "ho"dom.

This is what qualifies as "news" these days? How many individuals are participating in this media circle-jerk, fanning the flames of their own misperceived self-importance and "contributions" to the "important issues of the day"? Have they researched the issue? Have they assiduously investigated how many members of the basketball team in fact are or are not "hos"? Or are their flying fists too busy stroking their own misshapen egos and pipe dreams of their next performance in the media spotlight?

"Crucify him! Crucify him!"
"We have no king but vanity!"

Poor, poor Mr. Imus - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.

Nutter, the difference is that Imus is white. If you are black, you can say these things.

You see... this crowd that cries "racism" at the drop of a hat care what color your skin is. They make a discernment based on the hue of your epidermis. Ironic, isn't it?

I don't know if there is a bigger racist, or evil scum-bag on the planet than Jesse Jackson. Isn't this the guy that wore a bloody shirt for days to capitalize on the death of King? And lied about King's last words to him? And people still let him disgrace the memory of King? Ridiculous. He is a hate-monger and you guys let him win every time. White people have got to stop being shamed for things they haven't done. They are letting the blacks control the race debate, which is what these power-seeking racists want.

When did we win the freedom to insult entire groups of people for $$$?

Genji---you should listen to more rap albums. They've been doing it for years.

If Imus had to apologize to Al Sharpton, Al Sharpton should have to (publicly) apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players that he defamed, against whom all allegations of rape have now been dropped...confirming, in fact, that the black stripper they hired was actually a nappy headed ho.

I think that many here do not understand the concept of freedom of speech.

Our constitution protects us from restriction of free speech by the government. If Imus were banned by the FCC, it would be a violation of his right of free speech.

Imus was chastized and fired by his employers because they decided that he had hurt thier business as indicated by the protests made by prviate citizens and various nongovernmental organizations.

I have the right to criticise the government, but I do not expect a raio or TV station to grant me free time to exprees my opinion. If I were interviewed by a TV producer as a potential candidate for appearing on some talk show, He could tell me to keep my political opinions to myself or not appear. He could also require me to refrain from disparaging remarks about his sponsers' prioducts.

There is a similar misunderstanding about innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It applies to our justice system, but not in other contexts.Suppose a bank teller is tried for embezzlement and is found not guilty due to an improper search warrant. He is leggaly judgd to be innocent and will not go to jail, but the bank is not required to allow him to return to work as a teller. Executives of other banks who read about the case are allowed to judge him to be guilty and not hire him.


Suppose a policeman is known to have brutalized various people while arresting them, including some who were arrested due to mistaken identity. It is possible that he might not be found guilty in court or might not even be indicted. The police commissioner has the right (usually not exercised) to decide that the policeman should be fired. Unfortunately, police who could be convicted are protected by their pers and their superiors, but you get the idea.

I have the right to criticise the government, but I do not expect a raio or TV station to grant me free time to exprees my opinion. If I were interviewed by a TV producer as a potential candidate for appearing on some talk show, He could tell me to keep my political opinions to myself or not appear. He could also require me to refrain from disparaging remarks about his sponsers' prioducts.

The issue here isn't about Imus being fired, I think. MSNBC is perfectly justified in firing Imus, because it is just a business decision. Do you remember the outrage six years ago when Bill Mahr was fired from HBO? Both hosts expressed an opinion that some people didn't agree with, or a joke that people didn't think was funny, and were fired for that. This is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is the outrage propogated by some members of the community. I was listening the to the radio this morning between snoozes, and all of the black callers (who were most likely screened) all had the same opinions---Who appointed Al Sharpton "head nigga", black people all have nappy hair, and rappers have been using the word "ho" to describe women for roughly ten years. Imus was fired because sponsors had a problem with his comments, the same reason that Bill Mahr was fired. But will Imus have the sam support as Bill Mahr? No.

The point is that rascism is exacerbated because people like Al Sharpton want it to persist. People will make stupid comments as long as there are people---this is just a fact. We all find racial humor funny---just look at the popularity of racial comics like Carlos Mencia, Chris Rock, Dave Chapelle and (the godfather of the genre) Richard Pryor. But when Chris Rock says "The problem with black people isn't black people, it's the niggas", there is no public outcry. Al Sharpton doesn't go on crusades to have the Chapelle Show banned. When some rap singer says "G's up hos down", his label doesn't drop him. THIS is rascism.

Finally, people make disparaging comments all the time on the radio. I challenge you to show me a liberal talk show host who has never made worse comments about George Bush, or a conservative talk show host that hasn't called Bill Clinton worse things. What happens if Obama becomes president? Is he to be sheltered from all criticisms because he is black? It's perfectly ok to call George Bush a liar and a crook and a war criminal, but one offhand comment about the Rutgers basketball team is right out.

I think that many here do not understand the concept of freedom of speech.

Our constitution protects us from restriction of free speech by the government. If Imus were banned by the FCC, it would be a violation of his right of free speech.

Imus was chastized and fired by his employers because they decided that he had hurt thier business as indicated by the protests made by prviate citizens and various nongovernmental organizations.

I have the right to criticise the government, but I do not expect a raio or TV station to grant me free time to exprees my opinion. If I were interviewed by a TV producer as a potential candidate for appearing on some talk show, He could tell me to keep my political opinions to myself or not appear. He could also require me to refrain from disparaging remarks about his sponsers' prioducts.

There is a similar misunderstanding about innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It applies to our justice system, but not in other contexts.Suppose a bank teller is tried for embezzlement and is found not guilty due to an improper search warrant. He is leggaly judgd to be innocent and will not go to jail, but the bank is not required to allow him to return to work as a teller. Executives of other banks who read about the case are allowed to judge him to be guilty and not hire him.


Suppose a policeman is known to have brutalized various people while arresting them, including some who were arrested due to mistaken identity. It is possible that he might not be found guilty in court or might not even be indicted. The police commissioner has the right (usually not exercised) to decide that the policeman should be fired. Unfortunately, police who could be convicted are protected by their pers and their superiors, but you get the idea.

I think many here don't understand the concept of slander and libel.

Again - all about money.

I think many here don't understand the concept of slander and libel.

Judging from some of the things that some of the posters say about Bush, I certainly agree.

To my understanding, the Right for Free Speech does not protect you from being fired, it only protects you from the government from interfering. Imus said a statement which happened to, whether you agree to it or not, offended and/or pissed off a worthy amount of people, perhaps even his superiors, and caused him to be fired.

Now, why he is all over National news... I will never truly know. I have heard worse comments on the show South Park, but I have yet to see any boycott of the show. The media runs on ratings and it knows it can get a substantial amount of viewers with issues like the Anna Nicole Smith case and anything dealing with racism, while they ignore the "boring" issues which are more likely worse... or better... depending on your perception of course.

I don't understand how politics comes into play with this issue... so until I find a good (imo) reason why on earth people are talking about the left, the right, separation from Church and State, and separation from Science and State... I suppose I will refrain from jumping into an endless back-and-forth war over who is right and wrong.

Now, why he is all over National news... I will never truly know.

It is all over the national news becaus Imus is nationally syndicated, one, and Al Sharpton took an interest, two. Expect Sharpton to use this as a springboard for Barak Obama. Just a hunch:)

I suppose I will refrain from jumping into an endless back-and-forth war over who is right and wrong.

You must not comment on many threads here, then.

Genji---you should listen to more rap albums. They've been doing it for years.

If Imus had to apologize to Al Sharpton, Al Sharpton should have to (publicly) apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players that he defamed, against whom all allegations of rape have now been dropped...confirming, in fact, that the black stripper they hired was actually a nappy headed ho.The rap excuse is lame Ben. The Rutgers girls aren't rappers. Their young college athletes. Because some young blacks listen to rap means ALL blacks have degenerate mouths? Again, the Rutgers team aren't rappers.

Context is everything. Black people don't consider rap to be racist, so it doesn't matter. They are a little more sensitive about what white people say about them, 'cause of history and stuff.

Context is everything. Black people don't consider rap to be racist, so it doesn't matter. They are a little more sensitive about what white people say about them, 'cause of history and stuff.

Perhaps. But it seems kinda' odd in light of the fact that blacks have caused blacks more trouble and problems than all of the whites put together. Why don't blacks hate blacks???

Baron Max

An insult is still an insult, but it's worse when it comes from a member of the same race responsible for oppressing you for hundreds of years. This oppression has also contributed to black on black crime. For instance look at all the FBI did to subvert black organizations that promoted equality and justice, and the CIA's introduction of crack cocaine into the cities.

Context is everything. Black people don't consider rap to be racist, so it doesn't matter. They are a little more sensitive about what white people say about them, 'cause of history and stuff.

You guys are seriously suffering from ideological fixedness. You've been indoctrinated by this "double standard" nonsense that spews from the mouths of your low class peers.

The bottom line. I mean the bottom, fucking line is that Imus defamed the girls via electronic media.

How long do you think I would get away with calling Sharapova a cheap Russian whore over the radio? Please tell me. Not for long I woud think, unless I could prove it was in jest. But that would be very difficult due to the fact that whore is defined as: a prostitute, a person considered sexually promiscuous, a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. And for those of you who are urban challenged, ho means whore. Do you think a judge would be laughing at Imus' joke? Bush dancing around like a monkey equals jest. Stevie Wonder tripping into women's breast, repeatedly, equals jest. A man calling a woman a whore, no a group of women, whores on the radio equals disgusting.

And all this time I thought radio was about advertising and ratings. Go figure.

I suppose Imus will be running for Governor, next?

So where is that mighty free market corporate courage in all this?? If, as SF racists insist, this is no big deal and it should be OK to refer to young college athletes as dirty whores then why didn't the TV and radio sponsors stand their ground and prove that most Americans are racist and won't boycott their products? Surely a boycott by Leftists & blacks wouldn't hurt sales much. :shrug:

I am very happy MSNBC and CBS has cancelled Imus' disgusting, racist program. THank you Al Sharpton! Thank you Jesse Jackson! Even bigger thanks to the Rutgers Basketball team, their grace and poise was amazing. It easily could have turned into a shouting match but instead became a generally civil discussion. Now that Imus got his ass kicked out of radio and TV, all is normal. Now we can all move on :D :D :)

the bottom, fucking line is that Imus defamed the girls via electronic media.

Yeah, pretty much. He gets a public excoration because that's the public attitude. He gets fired because he aligned himself with a corporate entity. Al Sharpton inserts himself as if he represents all black people, and we would rather pay attention to gossip and minutae instead of looming and serious problems.

I agree with Baron Max on the free speech issue.
Radio is already less edgy than it used to be and that sucks. I would like to hear from the other side of the political spectrum, we should all hear what is on the collective mind, and face the devils inside our society.

Perhaps. But it seems kinda' odd in light of the fact that blacks have caused blacks more trouble and problems than all of the whites put together. Why don't blacks hate blacks???

Baron Max

hahaha, are u kidding me? Black people have not done even close the amount of damage to the world that white people have done to the world. Last I heard, black people did not enslave people just because of their color for 400 years. Yes slavery existed in Africa, but historians will always point out European slavery was EXTREMELY more cruel compared to African slavery. In African slavery, children were not permitted to be slaves most of the time. White people had no problem making little 5 year old slave girls and boys be slaves for the rest of their lives, on top of raping their mothers on a daily basis. Blacks in Africa also did not tell other blacks to lose their identities or burn slaves to death for running away...don't make me get into the Jim Crow era.

White oppression is the reason for many of the conditions the black world faces today....but change is coming....

I would have known nothing of it (Imus?) had it not been reverberated by the talking heads of the media and those offended. I am still trying to ignore the issue.

hahaha, are u kidding me? Black people have not done even close the amount of damage to the world that white people have done to the world. Last I heard, black people did not enslave people just because of their color for 400 years. Yes slavery existed in Africa, but historians will always point out European slavery was EXTREMELY more cruel compared to African slavery. In African slavery, children were not permitted to be slaves most of the time. White people had no problem making little 5 year old slave girls and boys be slaves for the rest of their lives, on top of raping their mothers on a daily basis. Blacks in Africa also did not tell other blacks to lose their identities or burn slaves to death for running away...don't make me get into the Jim Crow era.

White oppression is the reason for many of the conditions the black world faces today....but change is coming....

I don't like or have sympathy for current african-americans but i do have sympathy when i think of their ancestors just from a humane point of view.

You've got to be a cold, rotten-hearted bastard to enslave all these people who were pretty much helpless and more naive. To look at other people who are different and have done nothing to harm you as not human is a woefully degenerate, devilish mind.

When I think of the children along with adults packed in like sardines on those slave ships in fear who have nothing to look forward to but a life of slavery with no hope at all, most did not know what was awaiting them.

When i think of the inherent hopefulness, innocence, naivete, and trustfulness in a child, it gives me the coldest chills and is heartbreaking.
I saw a painting once of slaves in a ship with a skinny, naked little boy sitting shackled looking out uncomplaining, still innocent with his peaceful, humble demeanor it made me cry inside. It reminded me of the things that are sacrificed in this world that never should be and those who don't deserve to pay the price for all the ugliness others are responsible for.

And reminds me realistically how Humans have extreme unredeemable characteristics and what a piece of shit those characteristics are.

Slavery still exists today and children pay the greatest price. It's the evil within man and nature that has to combated. It's not out there, its within us. Good men examine themselves honestly and care about principals, bad men never examine themselves and use principals hypocritically for greed at any price.

I would have known nothing of it (Imus?) had it not been reverberated by the talking heads of the media and those offended. I am still trying to ignore the issue.The people that find nothing wrong with Imus' remark are the ones whining the loudest. Poor white men just have it soooo rough in the US:rolleyes:

The people that find nothing wrong with Imus' remark are the ones whining the loudest. Poor white men just have it soooo rough in the US:rolleyes:

:D

You must have read one of my quotes on IMDB.

"I believe Internet racism is just the bickering of these failures, where lower class people go to feel apart of something".

The rap excuse is lame Ben. The Rutgers girls aren't rappers.

Genji---thank you for clearing this up, and completely missing my point in the process.

The point is that it is perfectly ok for some people to make rascist comments, while other people lose their jobs. Al Sharpton doesn't seem to care about the largely mysoginistic attitude of black men towards black women, perpetrated by black popular culture. But when Imus makes an offhand comment on air, all of black america is suddenly up in arms. This is the point.

Genji---thank you for clearing this up, and completely missing my point in the process.

The point is that it is perfectly ok for some people to make rascist comments, while other people lose their jobs. Al Sharpton doesn't seem to care about the largely mysoginistic attitude of black men towards black women, perpetrated by black popular culture. But when Imus makes an offhand comment on air, all of black america is suddenly up in arms. This is the point.I don't think that has anything to do with the controversy. You justify a dried up old rightist has every right to target college women athletes? Open season on black college women? It's OK because rappers and some black comics use racial slurs? So you propose no boundaries? Can Rush now target black children because some politicians or musicians use racial slurs?? How could you possibly miss the point more?

A man calling a woman a whore, no a group of women, whores on the radio equals disgusting.

You should listen to more rap music then.

:D

You must have read one of my quotes on IMDB.

"I believe Internet racism is just the bickering of these failures, where lower class people go to feel apart of something".

When it comes to human failure and scum, they are represented in all classes.

I don't think that has anything to do with the controversy. You justify a dried up old rightist has every right to target college women athletes? Open season on black college women? It's OK because rappers and some black comics use racial slurs? So you propose no boundaries? Can Rush now target black children because some politicians or musicians use racial slurs?? How could you possibly miss the point more?

Are you still operating under the impression that Imus wasn't joking?

Are you still operating under the impression that Imus wasn't joking?The fact he thought it was funny makes it worse. The fact his rightwing audience thought it was funny makes it disgusting. The fact his cheerleaders are crying Victimhood just makes me puke.

The fact he thought it was funny makes it worse. The fact his rightwing audience thought it was funny makes it disgusting. The fact his cheerleaders are crying Victimhood just makes me puke.

I can't even argue with you. Are Imus's comments any less disgusting that what passes for popular music?

Imus's comments are unfortunate, I will agree. But you must also agree that there is a terrible double standard floating around here. In the grand scheme of things, is it worse for Imus to call a bunch of women hos or for a rapper to call a bunch of women hos?

The point is that it is perfectly ok for some people to make rascist comments, while other people lose their jobs. Al Sharpton doesn't seem to care about the largely mysoginistic attitude of black men towards black women, perpetrated by black popular culture. But when Imus makes an offhand comment on air, all of black america is suddenly up in arms. This is the point.

You are either stupid or irresponsible.

a) The media has largely portrayed the faces behind calls for Imus' firing as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, some NAACP head guy, and some other reverend. This is NOT "all of black america". Not even close. I don't see where you're getting that from or even how you've seen that to be even approximately the case. And this, from someone who demands evidence for things..

b) "Al Sharpton doesn't seem to care about the largely mysoginistic attitude of black men towards black women"

Let's count the number of vacuous generalizations you've crammed in here. a) Al Sharpton called for radio and television stations to impose a 90-day ban on musicians who engage in violence to promote their music or earn much-needed street credibility to build their rugged reputations. Either you're just plain ignorant and just don't bother to do your homework. Regardless of your views of the man, this is FAR FAR more radical than calling for Imus' firing. He's calling not just for black rappers (whom you ignorantly conflate with 'rappers' in general [see your own context]) to be banned, he's calling for MUSICIANS to be banned. Either way you try to weasel and spin things, the point is clear: Al Sharpton has taken a stand against these elements in black rappers music. In addition, he and Russell Simmons recently scheduled a “Call to Action and Public Grievance” march in Manhattan after a black rapper (Tony Yayo) reportedly struck a teenage boy. I don't care about Al Sharpton and I don't know what he's done to help me but the fact that you ignore all facts and refuse to do simple homework is just ridiculous. If you're looking for someone to blame, you are free to accuse the media of selective attention and perhaps pandering to popular thirsts but to accuse Sharpton of something that is so easily refutable while dragging "black men" through the mud is plain stupid of you.

I'm not even going to bother going into the crass generalization you made of how "black men" treat "black women" mysoginistically. Easy for you to lump them so nicely, isn't it? Moron.


Here's a tidbit. Try not to make such generalizations in the future, especially in race discussions. Not only does it make you like an idiot when counterevidence is readily available, but you come of like an asshole for making such crass generalizations about any group of people.

It's shameful that you call yourself a scientist.

*Just to clarify, I don't deny that Sharpton twists and takes advantage of things or that something underlying this whole business is rotten but BenTheMan's comments per se were just plain..

Imus was fired because the sponsors were pulling out and they paid for his show. Because he went "over the line" as to good judgment when he spoke about the women he should be fired as well as anyone else that does it IMO.

If you had bothered to read the first post I wrote instead of the last one, then I wouldn't have to respond to your baseless accusations.

Please---quote me out of context again. I love to be quoted out of context. It must be easy to contruct your arguments without the burden of accurately understanding mine first.

Doh.Oops. Sorry BenTheMan. :)

Imus was quoted out of context as well. And so were Kramer, John McCain,...


Here is what you actually said:

But when Chris Rock says "The problem with black people isn't black people, it's the niggas", there is no public outcry. Al Sharpton doesn't go on crusades to have the Chapelle Show banned. When some rap singer says "G's up hos down", his label doesn't drop him. THIS is rascism.

Doh. You didn't (yet again) EXPLICITLY claim "there is no public outcry" when there are plenty of black people who hate the "n-word" regardless of whose mouth it comes out off. There are (descriptive) linguists who lampoon the fact that society is still hung up on "nigger". At any rate the situation is NOT as naive and easily generalized as what you've made it out to be (in two posts). I took pains in the previous post to assure you that I had no problem with you blaming the media for inflating these 'white v. black' conflicts while paying almost NO attention to efforts by blacks to "clean house". (If you think I am quoting myself out of context you can refer to my own post :)) That really has to be the most irresponsible comment I've seen from someone respectable on this forum. The number of blacks who have stood up against the lyrical content in gangsta rap is not insignificant and yet you choose to ignore it and make easy generalizations. The fact is, the media gave almost no attention to Sharpton when he called for the 90 day ban or when he organized the march against the gangsta rapper Tony Yayo and that is why you did not know. Your misgivings are misplaced. When Kramer had his tirade, CNN ran something on "race in America". What does 'race in America' mean to the media? Black vs. white. Don't you see how that spills over and taints the public's perception of the issue? All you're doing is pandering to it.

I'll make myself explicit, just in case:
The reason we perceive there is no 'outcry' in those other cases is because "the media" ('big' news outlets) don't care when blacks protest inner city violence, lyrical content in gangsta rap, etc. Thus we are hard pressed to find front page coverage of these stories and so you'd think the number of blacks who are uncomfortable with the negative self portrayals of some are in the minority. But that's simply an effect of the media's selective attention and not merely lackadaisicality on the part of "black men" or "black people" to address their social issues. It's just not that simple.

All you've done is show that you subscribe to the media's (deliberate) portrayal of the "race issue" as one-sided, with whites as the one doing the apologizing. Of course when I accused you of ignoring that Al Sharpton does take a stand and did indeed call for a 3 month ban on all violent music, that was all quoting you out of context. You contradict yourself: When it's Imus being fired, you admit its just "business"; but when "some rap singer" (again you stupidly conflate "rap singers" with "black rap singers") says "G's up hos down" and isn't fired you don't call that "business" (see your own text), you call that "rascism". A little inconsistent, eh?

Or wait, am I quoting you out of context (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1354076&postcount=21)?

So: am I quoting you out of context by linking to your own post and using your own words? :shrug:

- Thanks

I can't even argue with you. Are Imus's comments any less disgusting that what passes for popular music?So some pop music is loaded with filthy lyrics. So? Does that justify calling these women what they were called? So 50cent cusses for a living so everybody is open to repeat his actions? As if that justifies it?
Interesting article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18096569/site/newsweek/
The Rutgers team is fair game because rappers cuss? Obviously you're on the wrong side of the debate. Even the mighty market forces retreated. I'm over this Imus thing now. It's getting boring running in place repeating the same arguments with people that believe racism is a big joke. ADIOS! At least in this thread!:)

Listen, y'all can argue about this Imus issue all you want, but I think y'all know exactly why it came out as it did --- the news media wanted to make it a big deal. If they hadn't made it a big deal, we wouldn't evn be talking about it.

Now how do y'all feel about being led around by the fuckin' nose?

Baron Max

The fact is, the media gave almost no attention to Sharpton when he called for the 90 day ban or when he organized the march against the gangsta rapper Tony Yayo and that is why you did not know. Your misgivings are misplaced. When Kramer had his tirade, CNN ran something on "race in America". What does 'race in America' mean to the media? Black vs. white. Don't you see how that spills over and taints the public's perception of the issue? All you're doing is pandering to it.

I think that we can certainly agree on this. I am guilty of confusing the arguing parties, this much is clear:) Most of the things you said I actually agree with, and I want to be very clear that I am not a rascist. A lot of the problems with rascism come in such situations like Imus'---Imus makes some dumb ass comment and gets attacked. Had he been black, it would have been a non-issue, I am willing to bet.

The problem that I have with the whole situation is that it IS a situation.

All you've done is show that you subscribe to the media's (deliberate) portrayal of the "race issue" as one-sided, with whites as the one doing the apologizing. Of course when I accused you of ignoring that Al Sharpton does take a stand and did indeed call for a 3 month ban on all violent music, that was all quoting you out of context.

Poll people you know about this. The problem is that we never hear from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson unless something like this happens. And then that's all we hear from. If you want to blame the media---fine. I agree with you. But the fact that the treatment is asymmetrical cannot be argued.

You contradict yourself: When it's Imus being fired, you admit its just "business"; but when "some rap singer" (again you stupidly conflate "rap singers" with "black rap singers") says "G's up hos down" and isn't fired you don't call that "business" (see your own text), you call that "rascism". A little inconsistent, eh?

Again, from the context I thought it would be clear that I was talking about a specific subset of musicians, so I will have to choose my words more carefully in the future.

Imus' firing was a business decision, this is true. And the market drives what kind of music is listened to. The point that I was making is that Imus' comments are mild by comparisson, and the only reason this seems to be an issue is because he is white. Had he been black, there wouldn't have been an uproar.

For anyone foolish enough to defend Imus (a silly thing to do considering Imus has been saying racist things about Jews and other races for a long time) is probably a closet racist themselves. Have we forgotten how Imus called Jewish kids "funny looking" not that long ago? HAHAHA, the Don Imus supporters are in a badly losing argument....and to all those saying Sharpton is the bad guy, you are loooking the wrong way. The media ignored Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when they called for a 90 day boycott of "violent" rap music. Maybe because rappers are not stupid enough to pick out specific, innocent people and call them disgusting, racist terms. The people in this forum who fail to see the difference are probably private Ku Klux Klansmen or members of the white supremacist Aryan Nation, I am convinced.

For anyone foolish enough to defend Imus (a silly thing to do considering Imus has been saying racist things about Jews and other races for a long time) is probably a closet racist themselves. Have we forgotten how Imus called Jewish kids "funny looking" not that long ago? HAHAHA, the Don Imus supporters are in a badly losing argument....and to all those saying Sharpton is the bad guy, you are loooking the wrong way. The media ignored Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when they called for a 90 day boycott of "violent" rap music. Maybe because rappers are not stupid enough to pick out specific, innocent people and call them disgusting, racist terms. The people in this forum who fail to see the difference are probably private Ku Klux Klansmen or members of the white supremacist Aryan Nation, I am convinced.

Can't you see how prejudiced and hateful you are being here? So quick to judge, and to such ridiculous extremes. The only difference between you and a racist is the target of your hatred.

You discredit yourself.

For anyone foolish enough to defend Imus....

So you don't believe in freedom of speech?

Baron Max

So you don't believe in freedom of speech?

Baron Max

It creates a cycle of infinite regression, doesn't it?

He is free to say that he hates freedom of speech, we are free to say he is stupid for saying that, he is free to say that we are motherfuckers for calling him stupid, we are free to call him a bigot for calling us motherfuckers, he is free to call us racists for calling him a bigot, ad infinitum...

I think that cycle is fine, as long as no ACTION is taken by either side. It is when you try to force or coerce with force the silence of another person, that you have broken the "moral sphere" and are in the wrong. In this case, it is the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's who are breaking the moral sphere. They used the threat of force (boycotts) to enact the silencing of another human being. They are objectively wrong in this case.

Imus is wrong for a different moral offense, he was an asshole. And now that the Rutgers Women's basketball team has publicly accepted Imus' apology, they are the only ones who come out smelling like roses. They have stated that they never wanted to see him fired, and that they are going through the process of forgiving his transgression. Perfect response. Truly noble.

So some pop music is loaded with filthy lyrics. So? Does that justify calling these women what they were called?

It looks like your "Hypocrisy" meter is broken, get that fixed right away. :)

Ya' know ...what's interesting is we seem to be hung up on what Imus said, as if it's wrong, immoral or whatever. But has anyone checked to the validity of his statement? I mean, maybe those women basketball players really are "nappy-headed hos"? Does anyone know for sure?

Baron Max

About half the team is white, so that rules out about half.

About half the team is white, so that rules out about half.

No wonder they lost.



Edit: ****REPORTED****

About half the team is white, so that rules out about half.

Two out of ten is NOT half ...unless "half" is different where you come from.

But even so, why can't white women be "nappy-headed hos"?

Baron Max

Yeh, I suppose you're right again Baron.

Ya' know ...what's interesting is we seem to be hung up on what Imus said, as if it's wrong, immoral or whatever. But has anyone checked to the validity of his statement? I mean, maybe those women basketball players really are "nappy-headed hos"? Does anyone know for sure?

Baron Max

Yes, it is a well known fact that the talented, intelligent Rutgers team is not full of hoes. Read the newspaper.