But you are making a presumption that what he said is indeed racist. You are saying these guys did something wrong. Now if they had clearly been racist then yeah, fire them. I'm not against people firing racists - but fire someone because they said something that an OVERSENSITIVE group is going to jump to conclusions about???? Keep going down this route and you won't be able to say anything. Pretty soon, everything will be offensive to someone - and bam, our culture will be a sanitized and boring superficial soundbites with no content. Is that what you want? For people to be punished for saying something that MIGHT be interpreted as racist???? MIGHT! So your test for a bigot is - if the person is offends someone of a different color, religion, or sex - they should be fired. PC is used to turn people's miscues into symbols for minorities to direct all their hate and frustrations toward. There are racists in this country - and they are the best at keeping thier mouths shut. They are the kinds who won't hire blacks, who hate Jews, and think hispanics are dirty. I have dealt with these kinds before - and they permeiate our society. Every minority has dealt with them, and they should be our targets. Not people who make bad jokes trying to get a laugh. Turning them into a target doesn't do anything but ruin someone's career and teach racists that they had better shut up about their views. You're not going after the racists - the racists aren't going to say that on TV. It's the people who aren't racists who think they are just being funny or making an observation based on their life experiences. Calling them racists doesn't do anything but make people feel better for calling them racists. It just makes people feel better - "wow, they are racists, thank goodness I'm not like them". It's disgusting. All I know is that PC is going to turn this country into a bland bowl of unflavored oatmeal - but we might already be there.
It is also capitalism and the same corporate America that made almost all radio stations uncreative and bland. I find nothing to cheer about.
It is. They did. This is one of the most hilarious arguments people use in this instances. "We can't say anything anymore." That's bull. You can still say whatever you want, you just need to be prepared to be called out for it, which you wouldn't have had to do back in the golden age. Not saying he should be fired - just that his employers should have the option (which they do) and be willing to exercise it if it will improve the bottom line (which is why they would). And that when you make your living on edgy humor, you should probably know where the line is. I don't know about you, but I prefer a country where racists have to find a way to deal, knowing what the consequences of displaying racism would be, to one where they feel encouraged to share their views. Huh. See, I'm not sure I could boil the thoughts of a couple hundred million people down to ten words and manage to give no one besides myself credit for intellectual honesty. Impressive work. "PC" is not a blind force that reacts in equal strength to every perceived slight on any minority, by the way. Remember Tony Snow's tar baby? And, more recently, John McCain's? They used a historically racist term, it created some debate, and neither man suffered for it because people examined the context and, as a rule, decided there was no harm done. Remember Trent Lott, who's back in a position of leadership now? How about Arnold Schwarzenegger? Mel Gibson's still getting work. You can't eradicate racism on an individual level. It just isn't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime. What you can do is make high-profile circumstances into a deterrent. Just one more burden for the celebrity crowd to shoulder, I'm afraid. Oatmeal is really quite good for you. And if America has to rely on racism, or even borderline racism, for flavor, then I'd say we've got bigger problems than the one you're talking about.
Well put. I agree that people shouldn't be banned from saying even hateful speech but at the same time people shouldn't expect not to have their speech that others find offensive challenged. PC is a delicate thing and has many problems but to the point that it does encourage people to challenge speech that is offensive that is a good thing. The problem that I have with critics of PC is that they tend to veer towards expressing what they argue against. They argue they are the defenders of free speech yet many times their arguments boil down to "Shut the Hell up and quit being so sensitive about a joke!" Free speech goes both ways and as much as people should be allowed to spout offensive jokes and other speech others are free to criticize it. If we believe in the marketplace of ideas then both the offended and offensors have as much right to express their views.
Absolutely - no one is saying that people can't complain about what someone says. That's not what is at issue here. I'm concerned about people forming unjustified judgements of people based on words that are ambiguous in their interpretations. If someone is clearly a racist or makes clear racist remarks - then go ahead and rip the person apart. But let me demonstrate my point with an example: There was a case once - where a bunch of black sorority girls were making a ruckus in the courtyard at the university of pennsylvania - and a guy (Eden Jacobowitz) was trying to sleep and opened his window and yelled out, "Shut up you water-buffalo". Several others yelled at the girls as well, including some who had yelled racial epitaths. Jacobowitz was charged for violating the university's racial harassment policy. These women pursued him relentlessly as a racist. He had to retain legal counsel and the incident gained wide-spread public notice. The black students also practiced civil disobedience including stealing all the school newspapers to protest what they saw as unfair coverage. Despite public outcry that this was clearly not racist, that the police cleared him of yelling any racial epitath, and that there was no other evidence to suggest he was a racist or prejudice - the university refused to drop the charges that he used racial epitaths. Now - that's what PC does for you. If you guys want to support this king of witch-hunting and turning villifying people and trying to get them banned from schools or jobs - that's fine. I find it disturbing. Nail the racists, but don't tar people because you don't like what they say! I'm not saying you can't say anything - just saying don't scream RACIST! Criticize the person for being insensitive. Tell him he is a moron. Speak out against his choice of words. But saying he is a racist? That's what you all are defending? Well, it makes sense that you are PC mr. chang, I guess....but man, that's too bad.
Then that's where we disagree. I don't see calling women a bunch of nappy ho's as racist. How is that racist - there were whites and blacks on the team. Geez, people are too sensitive and they got offended. This isn't about racism. You have no clue what racism is if you think calling someone a nappy ho is racist. It's rude and offensive, that's it. So basically you are saying even if your job is to be offensive and jude and push the edge - you can't do it. Eventually you'll go too far and piss some group off and then get fired. Eat your oatmeal. I don't support racism, but nice straw man to try to paint me in that corner. No, I don't need racism for flavor like you claim....but I like people to be genuine. I want people to say what they want to say, I'm hard enough to handle it, and not going to whimp out and cry for the person to get fired because he called me nappy or made fun of my basketball team, or because I am over-sensitive about my race. I'm not going to go against a governer who did a lot more for Indians then their opponent because he called an Indian American dressed like a fool "Macaca". Hey, it's your right to support PC and your right to call anything offensive racist. I understand - if someone is of color - you can't say anything or you are automatically a racist. And by the way, the only reason it affects the bottom line is because of people crying about it being racist. If companies had some spine people wouldn't demand thier jobs because they'd know that it takes more then a tiff to get someone fired. And like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson haven't been guilty of remarks that some felt was racially motivated as well! Wow - the hyprocrisy!
A consequence to PC is subverting bigoted thoughts without any chance of correcting it. It would be like waiting until the fat person leaves to tell a fat joke. The thoughts are driven underground, and it creates a certain bond among the bigots. I don't believe self censorship will send us along the path of a truly tolerant society. It's unfortunate that today's social climate would prefer PC as the lesser evil.
I'd love to see ya post your pro-PC post in the other thread about the Imus suspension. I guess there's so much you disagree with there though, there's no point. Anyway - just one question: If what he said was racist - then why didn't he say the same thing about the Tennessee basktball team, also with lots of black players. He actually said they were "cute". I guess there's something about Rutgers that is associated with race? Maybe you can explain that.... Wait, no, you disagree so you don't have to try.
^ As I said in my earlier post PC is problematic. I agree there is the danger of driving intolerent thoughts underground and even fetishizing them by making them taboo. One of the biggest problems regarding political correctness is that it has been used to frame speech policies. My understanding of the original intent of the person who coined the term, whose name eludes me at the moment, wasn't for it do that but instead to emphasize the need to challenge endemic racist and otherwise offensive speech. Under that original intent I think political correctness is completely necessary and as I've said in my post on the subject is perfectly in line with free speech. The problem is that the idea of "political correctness" is "PC" which is used almost solely as a perjorative term in regard to the restricting speech. There's no denying that there have been abuses of PC but I don't think that denies the necessity of having some level of political correctness in a pluralistic society. As I said before people certainly have a right to express offensive speech but people have a right to be critical of such speech. That it is politically correct to challenge such speech shouldn't be a problem but instead as something that is needed.
Are we better today then say 1989, when PC hadn't taken off... All I see is that PC is used to attack and bring down high-profile people who aren't racists but say the wrong thing. It's more of a panacea for people who have been injured by racism in the past, and gives them an avenue to "get back" at someone. Whatever small benefit to gain is lost by abuse. If you really want to fight racism, awareness and education, and integration is the right way. Get away from the words - address the issue and causes. It's not comedians, sportstars, talk show hosts, and politicians. It's usually more ingrained amongst the gentile - untouchable by the PC police. The potential for abuse for PC is too dangerous to make it a viable tool. A case in point is how Bill Maher got forced from ABC for offending Americans by saying terrorists were courageous since they were willing to die to hit their target while we lobbed bombs from apar. A true statement - but one that was very offensive, and resulted in people - mostly who didn't watch his show or know how much of a patriot is actually is - went on a tar campaign and tried to destroy his career. Even prominent republicans came out in his defense and still - it did not matter. It did not matter that the show was profitable. It did not matter that his show's name was "politically incorrect". He got fired by ABC. This is not the way it should be.
