Sorry I don't have a Link to provide, cuz I heard this story on the news this morning. It was all over the TV about how Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin lost his temporary custody rights of his 12-year-old daughter, Ireland. It seems that the courts in their infinite wisdom were informed about a voice mail message in which Baldwin yelled at his daughter for missing their scheduled visitation, yet again. The courts then responded by swiftly revoking Baldwin's visitation rights, calling the voice mail "verbal abuse". I heard the voice mail on the news. It really was no big deal. He sounded more hurt and upset than anything, saying that he "is tired of being treated this way". I can't say I blame him, nor can I see how this court order is justified, in the least.
My God, first they tell us we can't spank our kids, because that's abuse. Then they tell us we can't yell at our kids, because that's border-line abuse. Now we can't even get upset on our kid's voice mail without being condemned by the courts as abusive, then losing our parental rights?
Somebody please tell me what this world has come to? Cuz it's not looking too good from where I'm sitting. ************************************************** 04-21-07, 12:08 AM Valor D Check out how slanted and absurd this article is, that I found. They have a real knack for distorting the Truth, I'll say that much. "Threatenening message", indeed!
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/ ************************************************** 04-21-07, 01:32 PM coldfuse Valor, I listened to the audio and found it terribly abusive. I cannot imagine leaving that message for my daughter. These types of words from a parent can leave negative imprints for years. Baldwin is a jerk.
No doubt we are hearing but one side of the story, as is typical with domestic cases, and this is just my opinion. ************************************************** 04-21-07, 01:42 PM hippolips Hi Gang:
Poor Alec...how dare he try to discipline his child...
doesn't he know that it takes a Village to raise a child???
He and Kim are such a loving couple...
nothing's funnier than to watch two Liberals try to destroy each other ,while both seek the moral high ground.
I do feel sorry for the kid,however.She's just an innocent pawn in this cat fight.
Alec may have even destroyed his chance to run for Congress and be our Moral Compass.
His behaviour may also have doomed Alec to spend his remaining years hosting Saturday Night Live and talking about his "Sweaty B@#&s".
hippolips ************************************************** 04-21-07, 06:47 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: Valor, I listened to the audio and found it terribly abusive. I cannot imagine leaving that message for my daughter. These types of words from a parent can leave negative imprints for years. Baldwin is a jerk.
coldfuse, I don't know whether or not you're a parent, but take it from one who is, and has been there, when I say that there are going to be times when you're going to lose your cool, and let things slip out in the heat of the moment which you wouldn't ordinarily, especially when you're stressed and upset. This doesn't make you an "abusive" or bad parent. It only makes you human.
Now, can you honestly say with a straight face that that voice mail message you heard is a good reason for revoking Mr. Baldwin's parental rights? For doing what every parent is guilty of, at some time or another?
I think it's safe to say that the only reason this went down the way it did is because we're talking about celebrities, here. Hollywood exists in a world of its own. They're so wrapped up in their politically correct nonsense that they probably feel they have to make an example out of Mr. Baldwin. Trouble is, that the example this case will set will make for a dangerous precedent for all parents alike, not just celebrities. ************************************************** 04-21-07, 06:53 PM babthrower I listened to two minutes of ranting by a hysterical maniac, whether it is really Baldwin or not I don't know.
It seems his daughter, aged eleven, forgot to leave her cel phone on and he phoned and could not get through. It seems that this was not the first time this had happened.
"I make an ass of myself trying to get to a phone to call you..."
What? A wealthy man living in New York city has to make an ass of himself trying to get to a phone?
And he threatens that he will fly out there and spend a whole day just to 'straighten your ass out' and then turn around and fly back? He used lots of profanity and called her a 'rude little pig'.
This man is a neurotic control freak. His daughter should be protected from his irrational rage.
This is no way to teach his child a crucial value: that we are responsible for what we do and say even when we lose our cool; and by indulging in a fit of rage, we can do real damage to our loved ones. ************************************************** 04-22-07, 08:35 AM Lighteningrodd babthrower-I am in shock Eek For once I agree with you!!! ************************************************** 04-22-07, 11:11 AM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by Valor D:
coldfuse, I don't know whether or not you're a parent....
I am a parent who, for the past 15 years, has faithfully exercised his visitation rights with his children who live several hours away. Their mother has unsuccessfully used the legal system to attempt to restrict or eliminate those rights on numerous occasions and used the phone system to cut off contact when she is upset.
And no, I would never dream of talking to my daughter that way. It is manipulative and abusive.
My understanding is that Baldwin has been temporarily barred from seeing his daughter, which is different from losing parental rights altogether. Perhaps a cooling off period? I don't know, but it is sad that Ireland has been put in the middle of Alec Baldwin's and Kim Basinger's feud. She is the loser. ************************************************** 04-22-07, 11:20 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: babthrower-I am in shock Eek For once I agree with you!!!
Don't worry. You'll soon get over it. Razz ************************************************** 04-22-07, 12:04 PM Scotty It couldn't have happened to a better person. Big Grin ************************************************** 04-22-07, 12:20 PM GarColga This isn't "current events" - this is a really low form of celebrity gossip.
Isn't there another forum here for this sort of nonsense? 04-22-07, 12:58 PM dance girl Why isn't it current events GarColga? Is it because you don't consider it newsworthy?
It isn't top of the list on my reading agenda either. However, many people do consider it "news". As I have said before; we get what we ask for..or at least what the majority asks for.
Yes, there are far more interesting and important topics to be discussing. When somebody finds one, and posts it, this thread will be buried along with the other celebrity gossip.
Until then, I find it a useful insight into how others feel about parenting, parental rights, and what constitutes child abuse. Wink ************************************************** 04-22-07, 01:13 PM babthrower Exactly, Dancer. I remember reading an essay once on the function of gossip in society. The sociologists who wrote it said it was useful in establishing behavior norms.
#1 - Did you see the dress she wore to church? #2 - Oh, I know! Short skirt. Tight across the ummm, bosom. Advertising her wares, no doubt. Roll Eyes #1 - Scandalous! Mad
So person #2 has confirmed person #1's opinion that the dress was immodest. She will check with a few more trusted friends first. If most of them agree with her and with person #2, she will feel more secure that she fits in to her community's norms. Now she knows where the line is drawn -- at least in her community. ************************************************** 04-22-07, 01:18 PM juanruiz
quote: #1 - Did you see the dress she wore to church? #2 - Oh, I know! Short skirt. Tight across the ummm, bosom. Advertising her wares, no doubt. #1 - Scandalous!
If that's the case, I should go to church more often. Smile ************************************************** 04-22-07, 01:30 PM GarColga I just find this whole thing voyeuristic and trashy. My gosh - how would you like to have your private business broadcast all over and have people that know nothing about you offering opinions.
Not news - gossip. Shame on whoever released that answering machine message - and shame on all who are interested in the private troubles of a family they don't even know. ************************************************** 04-22-07, 01:48 PM juanruiz On the one hand, I agree with Gar that the media's obsession with celebrities is not news. On the other, it doesn't bother me all that much that a holier-than-thou schlemiel like Baldwin gets creamed when he screws up. ************************************************** 04-22-07, 04:17 PM Valor D It's not gossip. It's a matter of public record. Not like I picked this out of the National Enquirer. It was all over the news, for crying out loud. And, yes, it is of importance to anyone who cares. It's a public event, and it's current. That makes it part of "current events". ************************************************** 04-22-07, 04:47 PM GarColga How is some guy leaving an intemperate message for his daughter a 'public event'?
I just don't get it I guess, this interest in any and all things related to people that the media has conferred 'celebrity-hood' on.
Important? Only to that family.
You have a pretty skewed view if you think this is important in any way to the American public.
Oh gotta go - looks like Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are friends again, I don't want to miss this important coverage. ************************************************** 04-22-07, 05:02 PM Scotty
quote: And, yes, it is of importance to anyone who cares.
But..............who cares? ************************************************** 04-22-07, 05:19 PM babthrower Well, on the 'establish community values' scale for this type of correction of an 11-year-old, we have the following scorecard:
Support Baldwin : Valor and Hippo
No stated position: Garcolga, DanceGirl, Juan
Don't care: Scotty
Oppose Baldwin: Coldfuse, LighteningRodd, babs
So. Moving on to the next question... ************************************************** 04-22-07, 05:26 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Well, on the 'establish community values' scale for this type of correction of an 11-year-old, we have the following scorecard:
Support Baldwin : Valor and Hippo
No stated position, or don't care : Scotty, Garcolga, DanceGirl, Juan
Oppose Baldwin: Coldfuse, LighteningRodd, babs
So. Moving on to the next question...
Hi Babs:
By what stretch of your imagination did you think I was supporting Alec Baldwin ???
No way I would support that clown on anything.
hippolips
Edited to correct page distortion caused by lengthy line.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow, 04-22-07 07:43 PM ************************************************* 04-22-07, 05:48 PM babthrower I'm sorry, Lips, I just re-read your post and you're right. I read the first part and it sounded like 'poor Baldwin, those mean people keep messing with his attempts to give his kid a little discipline!!!'
But on re-reading that's not what you said. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 06:06 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: How is some guy leaving an intemperate message for his daughter a 'public event'?
Look, if it's in the court system, then it's a matter of public record. In this case, we're talking about celebrities. That makes it all the more "public". The voicemail message was the catalyst for this ruling. Which, resulted in Baldwin losing his parental rights.
quote:
Important? Only to that family.
You have a pretty skewed view if you think this is important in any way to the American public.
Wrong. You obviously don't have much understanding when it comes to "Legal precedent", do you? The laws of evidence and procedure and every other legal standard is an ever-changing thing. They can change with every new case, and every new ruling. Especially the cases which are cast in the limelight, due to them involving celebrities. And, when the courts can take away a parent's rights over a mere voicemail message, that creates a dangerous legal precedent for the rest of us, as I've already stated. Your sarcasm is neither called for nor appreciated, btw. Cuz when you're the ones who loses his kid over some petty thing like this, I doubt whether you'll be laughing. Then we shall see how much you care, or expect others to. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 07:27 PM honilov It's just a matter of Baldwin getting caught. I believe there's plenty of parents lashing out at kids this way, and there's plenty of 11 year olds and younger, lashing out at their parents the same way. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 07:52 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by Valor D: Your sarcasm is neither called for nor appreciated,
Appreciated - probably not!
Called for? Yes.
The Germans have a word for this, schadenfreude. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 08:42 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse:
My understanding is that Baldwin has been temporarily barred from seeing his daughter, which is different from losing parental rights altogether. Perhaps a cooling off period? I don't know, but it is sad that Ireland has been put in the middle of Alec Baldwin's and Kim Basinger's feud. She is the loser.
I don't know how temporary it is, I only know that they said on the news that Baldwin "had his temporary custody rights revoked". Which means to me that he currently has no visitation rights, either. What the longevity of that will be remains to be seen. I am unaware of any restraining orders being in place, but I wouldn't doubt that that may be what will come next. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 08:50 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga:
The Germans have a word for this, schadenfreude.
"Gloating"??
Confused ************************************************* 04-22-07, 09:51 PM GarColga Actually schadenfreude translates better as "shameful joy" - taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.
Anyway, sorry I made fun of your interest in this thing.
Maybe I'm just cranky because no one here seems interested in discussing the wave of scandals that is about to overtake the Bush administration. I've made a couple posts and gotten little response, meanwhile a thread about Don Imus goes on for pages!
Oh well. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 10:44 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: Actually schadenfreude translates better as "shameful joy" - taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.
Anyway, sorry I made fun of your interest in this thing.
Maybe I'm just cranky because no one here seems interested in discussing the wave of scandals that is about to overtake the Bush administration. I've made a couple posts and gotten little response, meanwhile a thread about Don Imus goes on for pages!
Oh well.
I agree that this story is "shameful". But, I receive no amount of joy or satisfaction whatsoever from it. My interest here is serious, and goes far beyond the interests of the Baldwin/Basinger "family". The ramifications of cases like this can often trickle on down the legal pipeline, polluting the water hole for everyone else. Just think of everything that the O.J. trial effected.
As for the Bush scandals, you don't even want to get me started. I've said what I had to say.
I've added my two cents worth in Don Imus' defense, as well. Because, his case has to do with Free Speech. And, I'm always ready to come to the defense of the U.S. Constitution, and the right to exercise her Laws. Too bad more people don't care to defend the first Amendment, neither over the radio nor voicemail. People are more concerned with appearing P.C., and of course, liability. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 11:06 PM Valor D It seems that there is, in fact, a Restraining/Civil Protection Order barring Baldwin from having any contact with his daughter, afterall.
I will try to follow up on the story and report any updates in the near future as they are made available. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 09:31 AM frankvan
quote: I've added my two cents worth in Don Imus' defense, as well. Because, his case has to do with Free Speech. And, I'm always ready to come to the defense of the U.S. Constitution, and the right to exercise her Laws.
No one is interfering with free speech in the Don Imus case. He exercises his to this date. But if you use your free speech to insult my customers, I'll exercise my right to fire your ass, period! ************************************************* 04-23-07, 09:47 AM aminator2002 I'm not watching the news anymore... I'm done for the time being. Right now we're either watching a mass murderer getting the attention he sought or dealing with people of fame that probably don't deserve any respect over and above being able to deliver lines well and look good - they are just actors. I think this case with Baldwin put a nail in it for me... all these people committing gross acts of racism, homophobia, child abuse, adultery, etc. They are just actors and should not command any more respect from us than someone that picks up our garbage each week, probably good reason that they should command less respect.
When did actors become gods? ************************************************* 04-23-07, 10:06 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: No one is interfering with free speech in the Don Imus case. He exercises his to this date. But if you use your free speech to insult my customers, I'll exercise my right to fire your ass, period!
Exactly. I don't know why people confuse free speech (the right to state your opinions and proclaim your values) with the right to eternal tenure in a particular job.
Maybe instead of racist slurs, if Imus had slammed the station's sponsor's product, and b been fired for it, the brave defenders of the U.S. constitution who are posting so indignantly would 'get' it.
e.g. Just following a Hummer ad, if Imus had announced:
"The Hummer is a piece of **** and Toyota will surpass American Motors sales in 2007 making Toyota the world's biggest car company,"
would he be seen as a champion of free speech? Or as an idiot?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Koz, 04-23-07 10:56 AM ************************************************* 04-23-07, 11:24 AM Kendor Where's this guy's right to privacy? Where's his right to 'straighten her ass out'? We don't know the whole story. Perhaps this little eleven year old is a rude little pig. Maybe dad is tired of her little games. Maybe her mother is a poor parent. Doesn't it seem possible that the little girl had been abusing her father?
Sounds to me like Mr. Baldwin genuinely cares about his daughter.
But my point is, that its none of our business! Or that judge's business for that matter.
And, as someone already said, who really cares? ************************************************* 04-23-07, 12:23 PM babthrower Celebrities lose their right to privacy. That's just a fact. Whine all they like, it comes with the territory.
If you really, really cherish your privacy, then live a modest and retiring life, out of the limelight, without large amounts of money, without going to 'in' dining places and vacation spots with other celebrities, without guesting on late-night talk shows, without using your face and fame to promote your money-making ventures such as films and albums.
Otherwise paparazzi will go through your garbage, you will be photo'd with telephoto lenses, your maids and nannies will be offered huge sums of money to write tell-all books, and so on.
I thought everyone knew that. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 02:18 PM juanruiz I have to agree with babs. In the old days of the Hollywood studio system, actors were carefully supervised, their appearances were scripted like their movies; bad publicity was hushed. Thus anyone on drugs or, in the case of Rock Hudson, a homosexual, would not receive bad publicity. That is all over, and now they're on their own. I do, however, find it hypocritical for them to insist on publicity when they want it, say, to huckster for a favorite cause, while demanding privacy the rest of the time. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 02:41 PM frankvan
quote: And, as someone already said, who really cares?
Well, you for one? ************************************************* 04-23-07, 02:46 PM coldfuse Wasn't Alec Baldwin to have moved away from the United States when Bush was reelected?
I'm just glad nobody records my public pronouncements (though the Mrs. does not forget them!). ************************************************* 04-23-07, 03:24 PM Scotty
quote: Wasn't Alec Baldwin to have moved away from the United States when Bush was reelected?
He was one, among others, but, we were not so fortunate as to have that happen. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 06:56 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: Wasn't Alec Baldwin to have moved away from the United States when Bush was reelected?
He was one, among others, but, we were not so fortunate as to have that happen.
He was one among millions who gave it serious thought. However, it became unthinkable when most realized it would leave the lunatics in charge of the asylum
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Originally posted by babthrower: Well, on the 'establish community values' scale for this type of correction of an 11-year-old, we have the following scorecard:
Support Baldwin : Valor and Hippo
No stated position, or don't care : Scotty, Garcolga, DanceGirl, Juan
Oppose Baldwin: Coldfuse, LighteningRodd, babs
So. Moving on to the next question...
Hi Babs:
By what stretch of your imagination did you think I was supporting Alec Baldwin ???
No way I would support that clown on anything.
hippolips
Edited to correct page distortion caused by lengthy line. ================================================ 04-22-07, 05:26 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Well, on the 'establish community values' scale for this type of correction of an 11-year-old, we have the following scorecard:
Support Baldwin : Valor and Hippo
No stated position, or don't care : Scotty, Garcolga, DanceGirl, Juan
Oppose Baldwin: Coldfuse, LighteningRodd, babs
So. Moving on to the next question...
Hi Babs:
By what stretch of your imagination did you think I was supporting Alec Baldwin ???
No way I would support that clown on anything.
hippolips
Edited to correct page distortion caused by lengthy line.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow, 04-22-07 07:43 PM ************************************************* 04-22-07, 05:48 PM babthrower I'm sorry, Lips, I just re-read your post and you're right. I read the first part and it sounded like 'poor Baldwin, those mean people keep messing with his attempts to give his kid a little discipline!!!'
But on re-reading that's not what you said. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 06:06 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: How is some guy leaving an intemperate message for his daughter a 'public event'?
Look, if it's in the court system, then it's a matter of public record. In this case, we're talking about celebrities. That makes it all the more "public". The voicemail message was the catalyst for this ruling. Which, resulted in Baldwin losing his parental rights.
quote:
Important? Only to that family.
You have a pretty skewed view if you think this is important in any way to the American public.
Wrong. You obviously don't have much understanding when it comes to "Legal precedent", do you? The laws of evidence and procedure and every other legal standard is an ever-changing thing. They can change with every new case, and every new ruling. Especially the cases which are cast in the limelight, due to them involving celebrities. And, when the courts can take away a parent's rights over a mere voicemail message, that creates a dangerous legal precedent for the rest of us, as I've already stated. Your sarcasm is neither called for nor appreciated, btw. Cuz when you're the ones who loses his kid over some petty thing like this, I doubt whether you'll be laughing. Then we shall see how much you care, or expect others to. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 07:27 PM honilov It's just a matter of Baldwin getting caught. I believe there's plenty of parents lashing out at kids this way, and there's plenty of 11 year olds and younger, lashing out at their parents the same way. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 07:52 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by Valor D: Your sarcasm is neither called for nor appreciated,
Appreciated - probably not!
Called for? Yes.
The Germans have a word for this, schadenfreude. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 08:42 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse:
My understanding is that Baldwin has been temporarily barred from seeing his daughter, which is different from losing parental rights altogether. Perhaps a cooling off period? I don't know, but it is sad that Ireland has been put in the middle of Alec Baldwin's and Kim Basinger's feud. She is the loser.
I don't know how temporary it is, I only know that they said on the news that Baldwin "had his temporary custody rights revoked". Which means to me that he currently has no visitation rights, either. What the longevity of that will be remains to be seen. I am unaware of any restraining orders being in place, but I wouldn't doubt that that may be what will come next. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 08:50 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga:
The Germans have a word for this, schadenfreude.
"Gloating"??
Confused ************************************************* 04-22-07, 09:51 PM GarColga Actually schadenfreude translates better as "shameful joy" - taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.
Anyway, sorry I made fun of your interest in this thing.
Maybe I'm just cranky because no one here seems interested in discussing the wave of scandals that is about to overtake the Bush administration. I've made a couple posts and gotten little response, meanwhile a thread about Don Imus goes on for pages!
Oh well. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 10:44 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: Actually schadenfreude translates better as "shameful joy" - taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.
Anyway, sorry I made fun of your interest in this thing.
Maybe I'm just cranky because no one here seems interested in discussing the wave of scandals that is about to overtake the Bush administration. I've made a couple posts and gotten little response, meanwhile a thread about Don Imus goes on for pages!
Oh well.
I agree that this story is "shameful". But, I receive no amount of joy or satisfaction whatsoever from it. My interest here is serious, and goes far beyond the interests of the Baldwin/Basinger "family". The ramifications of cases like this can often trickle on down the legal pipeline, polluting the water hole for everyone else. Just think of everything that the O.J. trial effected.
As for the Bush scandals, you don't even want to get me started. I've said what I had to say.
I've added my two cents worth in Don Imus' defense, as well. Because, his case has to do with Free Speech. And, I'm always ready to come to the defense of the U.S. Constitution, and the right to exercise her Laws. Too bad more people don't care to defend the first Amendment, neither over the radio nor voicemail. People are more concerned with appearing P.C., and of course, liability. ************************************************* 04-22-07, 11:06 PM Valor D It seems that there is, in fact, a Restraining/Civil Protection Order barring Baldwin from having any contact with his daughter, afterall.
I will try to follow up on the story and report any updates in the near future as they are made available. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 09:31 AM frankvan
quote: I've added my two cents worth in Don Imus' defense, as well. Because, his case has to do with Free Speech. And, I'm always ready to come to the defense of the U.S. Constitution, and the right to exercise her Laws.
No one is interfering with free speech in the Don Imus case. He exercises his to this date. But if you use your free speech to insult my customers, I'll exercise my right to fire your ass, period! ************************************************* 04-23-07, 09:47 AM aminator2002 I'm not watching the news anymore... I'm done for the time being. Right now we're either watching a mass murderer getting the attention he sought or dealing with people of fame that probably don't deserve any respect over and above being able to deliver lines well and look good - they are just actors. I think this case with Baldwin put a nail in it for me... all these people committing gross acts of racism, homophobia, child abuse, adultery, etc. They are just actors and should not command any more respect from us than someone that picks up our garbage each week, probably good reason that they should command less respect.
When did actors become gods? ************************************************* 04-23-07, 10:06 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: No one is interfering with free speech in the Don Imus case. He exercises his to this date. But if you use your free speech to insult my customers, I'll exercise my right to fire your ass, period!
Exactly. I don't know why people confuse free speech (the right to state your opinions and proclaim your values) with the right to eternal tenure in a particular job.
Maybe instead of racist slurs, if Imus had slammed the station's sponsor's product, and b been fired for it, the brave defenders of the U.S. constitution who are posting so indignantly would 'get' it.
e.g. Just following a Hummer ad, if Imus had announced:
"The Hummer is a piece of **** and Toyota will surpass American Motors sales in 2007 making Toyota the world's biggest car company,"
would he be seen as a champion of free speech? Or as an idiot?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Koz, 04-23-07 10:56 AM ************************************************* 04-23-07, 11:24 AM Kendor Where's this guy's right to privacy? Where's his right to 'straighten her ass out'? We don't know the whole story. Perhaps this little eleven year old is a rude little pig. Maybe dad is tired of her little games. Maybe her mother is a poor parent. Doesn't it seem possible that the little girl had been abusing her father?
Sounds to me like Mr. Baldwin genuinely cares about his daughter.
But my point is, that its none of our business! Or that judge's business for that matter.
And, as someone already said, who really cares? ************************************************* 04-23-07, 12:23 PM babthrower Celebrities lose their right to privacy. That's just a fact. Whine all they like, it comes with the territory.
If you really, really cherish your privacy, then live a modest and retiring life, out of the limelight, without large amounts of money, without going to 'in' dining places and vacation spots with other celebrities, without guesting on late-night talk shows, without using your face and fame to promote your money-making ventures such as films and albums.
Otherwise paparazzi will go through your garbage, you will be photo'd with telephoto lenses, your maids and nannies will be offered huge sums of money to write tell-all books, and so on.
I thought everyone knew that. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 02:18 PM juanruiz I have to agree with babs. In the old days of the Hollywood studio system, actors were carefully supervised, their appearances were scripted like their movies; bad publicity was hushed. Thus anyone on drugs or, in the case of Rock Hudson, a homosexual, would not receive bad publicity. That is all over, and now they're on their own. I do, however, find it hypocritical for them to insist on publicity when they want it, say, to huckster for a favorite cause, while demanding privacy the rest of the time. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 02:41 PM frankvan
quote: And, as someone already said, who really cares?
Well, you for one? ************************************************* 04-23-07, 02:46 PM coldfuse Wasn't Alec Baldwin to have moved away from the United States when Bush was reelected?
I'm just glad nobody records my public pronouncements (though the Mrs. does not forget them!). ************************************************* 04-23-07, 03:24 PM Scotty
quote: Wasn't Alec Baldwin to have moved away from the United States when Bush was reelected?
He was one, among others, but, we were not so fortunate as to have that happen. ************************************************* 04-23-07, 06:56 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: Wasn't Alec Baldwin to have moved away from the United States when Bush was reelected?
He was one, among others, but, we were not so fortunate as to have that happen.
He was one among millions who gave it serious thought. However, it became unthinkable when most realized it would leave the lunatics in charge of the asylum.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Originally posted by frankvan: No one is interfering with free speech in the Don Imus case. He exercises his to this date. But if you use your free speech to insult my customers, I'll exercise my right to fire your ass, period!
quote:
Originally posted by babthrower: Exactly. I don't know why people confuse free speech (the right to state your opinions and proclaim your values) with the right to eternal tenure in a particular job.
Maybe instead of racist slurs, if Imus had slammed the station's sponsor's product, and b been fired for it, the brave defenders of the U.S. constitution who are posting so indignantly would 'get' it.
e.g. Just following a Hummer ad, if Imus had announced:
"The Hummer is a piece of **** and Toyota will surpass American Motors sales in 2007 making Toyota the world's biggest car company,"
would he be seen as a champion of free speech? Or as an idiot?
All I meant was that there doesn't seem to be any more Freedom of speech being observed via voicemail than there is via radio, these days.
Apparantly rappers have an exclusive right to the use of the phrase "nappy headed hoes", without being drawn and quartered as a racist. People need to lighten up just a little. Maybe more than a little. I'm getting rather sick and tired of that double-standard being in play. Since when do the artists that the radio/MTV jockeys give airplay have more right to free speech than the people who play them?
If it were someone like Eddie Murphy who made that comment, it would get a laugh, and that would be the end of it. But, when someone like Imus says it, it's suddenly a world debate. The first Amendment is not a "cafeteria" right. You can't just pick and choose what it does or doesn't apply to, or for whom. It's all and everyone or nothing and noone. Either you believe in it or you don't.
Anyway, we're getting off-topic, here. Kindly leave Don Imus where he is, he's tired, already. Let the man rest. ************************************************** 04-23-07, 08:43 PM Scotty
quote: He was one among millions who gave it serious thought
Yeah! Right! ************************************************** 04-24-07, 09:30 AM frankvan
quote: Since when do the artists that the radio/MTV jockeys give airplay have more right to free speech than the people who play them?
However ardently you profess to defend it, you still don't appear to understand the concept. You can say whatever you want, to whomever you wish to say it, just don't come crying to me if you get punched in the nose. Yes, Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock can say things about members of his own race that a white person would be considered rude or ill-advised to try. BUT there is NO law against it! ************************************************** 04-24-07, 09:35 AM babthrower Hate speech has to be judged in part by its intent. When a male says 'women are nothing but whores' the intent is obviously to demean. But if I say to another woman, 'You look like a ho' in that dress', she knows my intent is to tease her, in fact it's a compliment, it means she looks 'hot'.
So if a male says, on radio, 'Women are nothing but whores,' you bet I will boycott that sponsor, and e-mail the station that I intend to do it.
(Why do we have to continually explain these obvious things?) ************************************************** 04-24-07, 11:13 AM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Yes, Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock can say things about members of his own race that a white person would be considered rude or ill-advised to try. BUT there is NO law against it!
That's called a "double standard", as I said. Also known as hypocrisy. No matter how you slice it or try to justify it, it's still wrong. If you truly believe in equality, then begin by rethinking this. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander', as the say.
By the way, all people are the same "race". I know, that's not "politically correct", either. But, it is a Fact. Ask any sociologist, and they'll tell you how the attempt at proving the theory of "race among race" has been tried and tried over and over again, and failed every time. We are all human, and there is the end of it. You're repeating what's called a "social norm"- nonsense which you've been conditioned to believe, from repeated exposure. But, that doesn't make it any more true. Therefore, your argument is equally as bogus. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 11:27 AM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Hate speech has to be judged in part by its intent. When a male says 'women are nothing but whores' the intent is obviously to demean. But if I say to another woman, 'You look like a ho' in that dress', she knows my intent is to tease her, in fact it's a compliment, it means she looks 'hot'.
So if a male says, on radio, 'Women are nothing but whores,' you bet I will boycott that sponsor, and e-mail the station that I intend to do it.
(Why do we have to continually explain these obvious things?)
Whether you want to call it "hateful", or "comedy", it's all in the eye of the beholder. I can't tell you how many racist jokes I've heard Eddie Murphy tell. Have you boycotted him too? I thought not. The point is, that's his right under the first Amendment. Because, it applies to everyone. Regardless of how you 'perceive' it. It's still his right. Don't like what he has to say? Nobody's forcing you to listen or watch. So, change the station.
Just as noone is asking you to explain anything. Regardless of how "obvious" you think it all is. There will always be those there who will disagree with you, and challenge your pre-existing perceptions. Which can be a good thing. Perhaps this will afford you the opportunity to rethink yourself, by making you step back and re-examine your beliefs objectively. And, who knows, maybe learn something in the process. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 12:16 PM babthrower What on earth makes you think that's not politically correct?
quote: By the way, all people are the same "race". I know, that's not "politically correct", either.
"Racism" is discrimination against a subset of humans, because of supposed inferiority; it is the teaching of such views, and the legislation of policies to deprive the subset of rights available to citizens who are not of that subset. "Racism" is based upon the notion that "races" are distinct. So to deny that 'racism' exists is foolish; to deny that 'races' exist is just another sociological position.
But if there was no distinction, then how would the racists know whom to oppress? So there are distinctions between subsets of humans. "The human race", if we want to carry the absurd quibble even farther, has subsets. Male and female; child and adult; people with lots of skin melanin and people with less; etc.
'Whites' have some physical traits : we have coarser hair, and lots of body hair, and we are more subject to skin cancer, for a few. That's probably because in later evolution, after humans became humans, we lived in more northerly areas. Lighter skin allows us to synthesize more Vitamin D in a climate with long sunless days most of the year. But it becomes an inferiority when we migrate to hot climates.
When northern Europeans went to Australia, the name 'pommy' was used as a nickname: it described the pomegranate-like color of their skins, not yet acclimatized to the sunny weather there. They acclimatize when their scanty melanin migrates to the skin surface and they get a tan. But they aren'ts adapted to the climate as the natives are.
Very dark skin is due to lots of melanin which blocks out sunlight that in excess is harmful to underlying tissues. This too is evolutionary. But we're not separate species.
The offense is not in the recognition of physical traits which are local adaptations, but in the negative attributions made by some people in an attempt to demean, to discredit often with a view to exploiting a group. Ethnicity and 'cleansing' are related notions.
So I may know that someone is a Serb because of his/her language, and some physical traits common to people from that part of the world. That is not ethnicist. But if I say that Serbs are not to be trusted and may not marry my son or daughter and to avoid that risk Serbs must be educated separately then I am ethnicist.
By the way, what about discrimination against children? Wink ************************************************** 04-24-07, 12:24 PM newnickname
quote: By the way, all people are the same "race". I know, that's not "politically correct", either.
Now I'm really confused about what's meant by 'political correctness'. I thought the scientific proof, through studies of DNA, that there are more differences within the conventional "races" than between them (ie that "race" is an definately an artificial construct), was something celebrated by the 'politically correct'. Of course, it doesn't mean that discrimination based on this artificial notion doesn't exist and shouldn't be addressed.
What's so difficult about the idea that, while it's sometimes acceptable for a member of a particular group to say rude things about that group, it's different for someone not a member? It's not a double standard; it's a long-accepted social convention. Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock are guilty of sexism, but not racism - and they're funny with it. Don Imus - as he has admitted himself - shouldn't have said what he did at all. It didn't land right in any way, not even having the redeeming feature of being funny. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 01:50 PM babthrower Boy, do I feel like I'm swimming upstream against a strong current!
People who feel offended complain. People who enjoy the humor even when it is aimed at themselves seldom complain.
Didja ever notice how much Jewish humor is aimed at themselves?
So if your ox is not being gored, DON'T WHINE.
And if your ox isn't being gored, but your situation is okay, have broad shoulders and DON'T WHINE.
So if Eddie Murphy tells an anti-black joke and blacks laugh it's because they understand the humor and enjoy it; they know Murphy's talking from shared experience.
If Eddie Murphy tells and anti-white joke, grow some broad shoulders. I think they might have a little more reason to feel racist than you do. And humor helps them deal with it.
If Eddie Murphy tells a sexist joke AND I'M OFFENDED by it, I'll complain. If I'm not offended by it, because there's some humor in it, I'll not complain: broad shoulders.
Here's one of my favorite sexist jokes.
A gorilla escaped from Stanley Park zoo and broke into a West End apartment and raped a woman. The zookeepers followed the gorilla and entered her apartment and captured the gorilla and called 911. The woman was taken to hospital and checked out. She was physically okay, a little disheveled, so they kept her overnight. In the morning, they checked her and saw that she seemed depressed. A councilor was called in. When asked to talk about what was troubling her, exactly, she replied, "No flowers. No candy. He didn't even phone! (Sob!)" ************************************************** 04-24-07, 02:11 PM newnickname Yes, it's about context and intent - who's talking to whom and why. The context of the Imus gaffe was a bunch of well-paid white guys smirking at womens' basketball, with racist epithets, in a show that's supposed to be enetertaining and funny. When he poked fun at politicians and celebritie, nobody minded. Jokes made by the powerful about the less so tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth, but it's not so when it's the other way about, or on a level playing field.
We lack the context of the Baldwin story - the question is, is there context in which what he said and how he said it OK? ************************************************** 04-24-07, 05:07 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Now I'm really confused about what's meant by 'political correctness'. I thought the scientific proof, through studies of DNA, that there are more differences within the conventional "races" than between them (ie that "race" is an definately an artificial construct), was something celebrated by the 'politically correct'. Of course, it doesn't mean that discrimination based on this artificial notion doesn't exist and shouldn't be addressed.
ha. yeah, that would be nice if more people did think that way. Unfortunately, not. What's among the first questions when being polled or surveyed? Or, whenever you walk into a Government agency and fill out a form, isn't there always a "check race" box there? And, don't forget about such Federally supported groups such as "Affirmative Action".
Even over the phone once, when I was trying to file for unemployment, I ended up getting into an argument with the guy about "how there's no such thing as race" for about 20 minutes before we got to the purpose of my call, and by then the guy had developed a major attitude with me.
Maybe some day in the future people will get past this mass misconception and grow color-blind. But, for now, it's still thriving like a cancer. Eating away at us from the inside-out. And, it's all so pointless and unneccessary, is the worst part. It's all based on nonsense.
Yet, people often become down-right angry when you try to educate them on the subject. It's a nice surprise to see some people here who are actually learned on the subject. I couldn't agree more that discrimination is, and continues to be a major problem in the U.S.. The best way in which I know of fighting it is by trying to educate people. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 05:21 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Boy, do I feel like I'm swimming upstream against a strong current!
I know the feeling!
quote:
If Eddie Murphy tells and anti-white joke, grow some broad shoulders. I think they might have a little more reason to feel racist than you do. And humor helps them deal with it.
That statement is racist and discriminatory, in itself. Noone has the right to be racist, or to be a bigot. And, those who have a history of being oppressed and discriminated due to physical characteristics are twice as bad for committing the same against others, because, afterall, they of all people should know better.
By the way, Eddie Murphy is one of the most racist comedians I know of. I don't think he's made a movie or done a stand-up routine that didn't at least contain one racist joke. Mainly aimed at so-called "white people". Don't get me wrong, I've laughed at him, too. But, he's still a racist. And, a comedian who can only get a laugh at the expense of others is not a very good one. They're cheap laughs, at best.
Of course, people like him will always have people like you there ready to come to his defense because his Great-Great-Great Grandfather may or may not have been a slave, or been discriminated in some way. So, that, I suppose, gives him a free license to be racist and discriminate? Hardly. But, that's the very hypocrisy I was referring to. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 05:49 PM babthrower Bab had said: If Eddie Murphy tells and anti-white joke, grow some broad shoulders. I think they might have a little more reason to feel racist than you do. And humor helps them deal with it.
RE which The Valorous One opined:
quote: That statement is racist and discriminatory, in itself.
Again I have to clarify some things most people understand quite easily, so forgive me if I sound patronizing to the rest of you.
We may exercise the virtue of being discriminating
discriminate: to make a distinction; to use good judgment (MW)
without breaking the law;
But if we
discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit (MW)
in Canada and the U.S. we break the law.
People with good sense discriminate all the time. I discriminate between french fries and fresh veggies all the time. I discriminate between
-- people who are stupid and brutal, and -- people who are sensitive and smart, when I am looking to make new friends.
I also discriminate on the basis of what jokes or remarks or 'humor' to take easily, because of the context, and what ones to take offense at, either on my own behalf or on the behalf of other innocent parties.
When your hero of free speech called those young athletes 'nappy-haired ho's' he said to some parents that their daughters were prostitute and that they were all black. When he was called on it, if they had been all prostitutes he could have defended the truth of the statement and he did not; he could have trotted out his evidence. and he did not. So he was slandering them.
They have taken some trouble to reach their level of education, and no parents want their young daughters slandered in that way.
To call them 'nappy-haired' was simply a pejorative slur often applied to people of color by stupid bigots.
I hope someone as blind to fair practice and someone who does not discriminate between 'humor' that is truly offensive and 'humor' that is pretty general and harmless does not have a daughter; but imagine (if you can) that you did have a young daughter who was an athlete and someone called her a prostitute without cause. Would you go to bat for his 'freedom of speech'?
(Gosh! You just might!) Confused ************************************************** 04-24-07, 06:06 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by Valor D:
Even over the phone once, when I was trying to file for unemployment, I ended up getting into an argument with the guy about "how there's no such thing as race" for about 20 minutes before we got to the purpose of my call, and by then the guy had developed a major attitude with me.
LOL! Gee I wonder why any one would cop an attitude over some guy trying to 'educate' them while applying for unemployment benefits. I have to wonder if this kind of attitude might be why you were unemployed.
quote: Yet, people often become down-right angry when you try to educate them on the subject.
Maybe you should stop trying to 'educate' people. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 07:10 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: LOL! Gee I wonder why any one would cop an attitude over some guy trying to 'educate' them while applying for unemployment benefits. I have to wonder if this kind of attitude might be why you were unemployed.
Not at all. This was years ago, and why I was unemployed is none of your business. The reason the whole "race" thing became an issue was because that jerk at the Employment office was trying to force me into answering his stupid question the way he wanted me to. When asked what my "race" was, I simply answered "human". But no, that wasn't good enough. I had to select from one of their predefined categories (i.e. white, black, hispanic, etc.)
That was not the first time I've had to deal with ignorant people like that, nor will it be the last, I'm sure! Once, I actually lost a job in the first few days I was there because they also tried to force me into answering the "race" question. All I would tell them is "human" and "homo sapien". They, too, summarily decided that I must have some kind of "attitude" or "problem", and the manager pretty much told me he had no work for me at the moment, and he'de call me when he did. He never called back. That's a badge of their shame, not mine. I stood for what I believed in, and accepted the consequences.
quote:
Maybe you should stop trying to 'educate' people.
When I'm dead and buried! Until then, I'll continue to try, so long as I still draw breath!
Maybe you should stop trying to discourage others from educating or being educated, and equating those who do with 'having attitude'. When, all they're actually doing is advocating what's right. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 07:37 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: blah, blah, blah...
I'm done responding to this. I've stated my position on the subject, and now I'm through. I've asked nicely at least once to leave the Don Imus issue where it is, as he has a thread all his own. You and some others have taken this thread (and myself) so far off-topic that Mr. Baldwin has disappeared altogether. I don't know how many times I must repeat myself before getting through to you, but I don't want to find out. ************************************************** 04-24-07, 07:57 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by Valor D: I don't know how many times I must repeat myself before getting through to you, but I don't want to find out.
Don't give up, V! Babs is Canadian after all - tell the truth, I think they're a different race altogether. This educating people, it's not always a piece of cake.
04-24-07, 08:52 PM newnickname Years ago, I did some interviewing for the company I worked for. Applicants submitted two application forms. One - which we interviewers never saw - asked about age, sex, race, marital status and so on. The other was a regular CV/resume. So applicants were asked about their race - but this was to monitor (thus prevent) racism.
How could you prove that (or even find out if) people of a certain age group, gender or race were being subtly (or not so subtly) eliminated from the interview process unfairly, unless you had statistics about applicants and outcomes which included such information?
I guess that's why Valor D was asked the question. By refusing to answer (his or her right, of course) he or she was maybe being less than helpful towards those insititutions' attempts to combat the insidious idiocy of racism.
Often it's good to get all the information before flying off the handle - a statement which may also apply to Baldwin's predicament and reactions to it. ************************************************** 04-25-07, 01:07 AM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by GarColga:
Don't give up, V! Babs is Canadian after all - tell the truth, I think they're a different race altogether. This educating people, it's not always a piece of cake.
To coin an old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." ************************************************** 04-25-07, 02:18 AM Valor D Getting back on topic:
Baldwin, who has been locked in a custody dispute with Basinger since their 2002 divorce, blamed her for the leak on Friday. He also apologized on his own Web site for "losing my temper with my child."
Basinger is facing trial on 12 misdemeanor counts of criminal contempt for allegedly disregarding court orders concerning Baldwin's visitation rights. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 04:06 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: If Eddie Murphy tells and anti-white joke, grow some broad shoulders. I think they might have a little more reason to feel racist than you do. And humor helps them deal with it.
If Eddie Murphy tells a sexist joke AND I'M OFFENDED by it, I'll complain. If I'm not offended by it, because there's some humor in it, I'll not complain: broad shoulders.
That's just unbelievable. I'm..........speechless. That's just, well it's just unbelievable! ************************************************** 04-26-07, 08:57 AM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Kendor:
That's just unbelievable. I'm..........speechless. That's just, well it's just unbelievable!
Thank the Lord for small mercies! Wink ************************************************** 04-26-07, 09:35 AM Kendor Frank, you'd rather have me mute? I thought you enjoyed picking apart my posts! ************************************************** 04-26-07, 09:50 AM newnickname When Murphy says it, it's different from when Imus says it. Dear old mahal used to have problems with the idea that the same words can have different meanings or impact in different contexts, too. I wonder if it's a right-wing blindspot generally.
I wonder also if it's to do with personae. Murphy and Rock have stage personae that are pretty ancient - the 'braggart fool' would have been recognised by Shakespeare, I'm sure, if not by dramatists going further back. Part of the joke is that it's all talk, just smart mouthing. Imus - as he himself seems to have recognised - couldn't pull that off; the persona he took on when he and his buddies made the comments they did was that of the mean-eyed good ol' boys you see hanging around the barber shop in movies like "Heat of the Night". The same words from people in different situations can mean different things. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 10:51 AM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: Frank, you'd rather have me mute? I thought you enjoyed picking apart my posts!
Nothing personal. It's just when I feel they're not up to your usual high standards. Smile ************************************************** 04-26-07, 11:13 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: That's just unbelievable. I'm..........speechless. That's just, well it's just unbelievable!
Wow, that's amazing! There's something you wouldn't believe! After the crap you swallow from your government spin-doctors I'm surprised you find anything incredible.
But you should believe it. That sexist joke I told above is one I've chuckled with, albeit somewhat ruefully, with both men and women friends.
The ability to laugh at oneself is a good one and a healthy one. But no one has the right to 'order' me to find a joke funny.
It should be legal for me to light a fire, right?
Maybe I hate my neighbor. It is essential for my personal happiness that he move. So I set fire to his house and burn it down.
I insist that I was only pursuing my right to happiness. The judge does not agree and he tells me so - ho,ho,ho.
Does that limit my freedom of action? Of course.
Most sensible people understand that to live in any society means that certain freedom of action must be restricted. People of good will do not need the law to tell them when it's all right to burn someone's house down. They just follow the golden rule. Others need laws which clarify things for them.
We have to consider the consequences of what we say. Our freedom of speech is always limited.
In Canada we had a famous case a few years ago. A high school history teacher used his position as a platform from which to spew his anti-Jewish beliefs. What he taught was not on the curriculum so he was fired. He was later convicted of spreading hate literature. I was comfortable about his firing, because he was not teaching what those students needed to learn to complete their course work.
I was not comfortable with his conviction for spreading hate literature though, because of one thing only.
He taught and published that it is false that the number of Jews killed during World War II was six million.
I don't believe it was six million either. That number has become sacred to the Zionist cause. Yet it is based upon an estimate made by the Red Cross after the war was over.
-- Number of Jews in Europe before the war: -- Add: estimate of number which would have been expected due to natural increase ============= Number of Jews who should have been in Europe after the war -- Less: census of Jews after the war ============== Difference: six million.
But this is pretty rough. For example, it excludes Jews who escaped from Europe during the war.
Therefore to disbelieve the sacred number "six million" should not be a crime! "Six million" is a propaganda factoid.
But I didn't protest this man's conviction, because he'd said enough other anti-Jewish things that he was clearly guilty of spreading hate-literature. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 11:27 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Thank the Lord for small mercies!
Do you realize you used a capital 'L'? ************************************************** 04-26-07, 11:42 AM Scotty
quote: When Murphy says it, it's different from when Imus says it.
Would it have been allright for Murphy to call the Rutgers team "nappy headed Ho's?"
If I call myself a "Honkie" should I be offended if others do the same? ************************************************** 04-26-07, 11:47 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: It should be legal for me to light a fire, right?
Um, NO?
But your argument fell apart long before that.
Here's a good one:
"My wife and I had a fight last night. It was my fault though. She asked me what was on the TV and I said, 'dust'." ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:06 PM babthrower Bab asked: It should be legal for me to light a fire, right? Kendor replied:Um, NO
What? You would deny people the right to warm their houses???? Go camping???
How dare you restrict our freedom to keep warm! Mad ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:12 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: When Murphy says it, it's different from when Imus says it.
Would it have been allright for Murphy to call the Rutgers team "nappy headed Ho's?"
If I call myself a "Honkie" should I be offended if others do the same?
I don't know if your being intentionally dense, but surely it must be obvious to you that we white folk have never been victims of discrimination, at least in America. Can you honestly say that that has been the case for people of color? Have you never exchanged insulting language with your friends and family, in jest? Have you avoided doing the same among friends, neighbors, and strangers out of consideration for their particular sensitivities? If you complain about political correctness, ask yourself, WHY? Is there some hurtful term you want to be able to use regularly, with impunity? Does tolerance place an unwelcome burden on you?
I'd welcome somethin a little more responsive than your old favorite: "yeah, right!" Wink ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:15 PM newnickname
quote: Would it have been allright for Murphy to call the Rutgers team "nappy headed Ho's?"
If I call myself a "Honkie" should I be offended if others do the same?
Does anyone still say "honkie"? Smile
"Ho's" is questionable, but, as I explained there's a persona involved, which I described as the 'braggart fool'. Part of the joke is that we know that, faced by a strong woman, this persona would very quickly back down. It's comedy.
Why is it so diffcult to grasp that it's OK for a particular (arbitrarily identified) group to poke fun at itself (or to defang insults and taboo words by taking them over), but it's different when someone outside the group does it? It's basic good manners. I can say my singing is terrible, but it's different when you say it - it doesn't matter whether my singing is terrible or not,it's just good old fashioned politeness.
I wonder if part of the schadenfruede (sp?) experienced at the Baldwin story arises from seeing the ugly reality behind his actorly persona. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:18 PM frankvan Babs, it may be legal in Canada, but there are limits in this country to the right to warm oneself by burning neighbors houses. There is probably a reason for that. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:28 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Kendor:
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Thank the Lord for small mercies!
Do you realize you used a capital 'L'?
The fact that I consider myself an atheist doesn't prevent me from using conventional spelling. I see no reason to drag this thread any further from the Alec Baldwin controversy by the gratuitous introduction of what some might take offense from. Some of my best friends and my current wife are theists. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:35 PM Scotty
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: If Eddie Murphy tells and anti-white joke, grow some broad shoulders. I think they might have a little more reason to feel racist than you do. And humor helps them deal with it.
If Eddie Murphy tells a sexist joke AND I'M OFFENDED by it, I'll complain. If I'm not offended by it, because there's some humor in it, I'll not complain: broad shoulders.
If Eddie Murphy or any other black person tells anti-white jokes, we are supposed to suck it up and just take it quietly. Laugh it off and let it go. On the other hand, if a white person does it, all hell is going to break loose, and you don't see this as a double standard?
Then you say if he tells some sexists jokes that you will complain.
Like Kendor, I am speechless. Confused Confused Confused ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:45 PM Kendor Lighten up frank, I was only being jovial. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 12:49 PM frankvan
quote: If Eddie Murphy or any other black person tells anti-white jokes, we are supposed to suck it up and just take it quietly. Laugh it off and let it go.
YES! Is that so hard to understand? If a joke is funny, normal people laugh. The color of the comic has no bearing on it - except for bigots. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 01:03 PM Scotty
quote: YES! Is that so hard to understand? If a joke is funny, normal people laugh. The color of the comic has no bearing on it - except for bigots.
Then why do blacks get so upset when white comedians tell anti black jokes? Why can't they just accept it as humor and laugh it off? Are they not normal? It is always one sided with you. Double standards, Frank.
I am just asking questions, I hope that you don't think that I am a bigot. I don't think that anyone should be a racists, black or white. You know.......do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 01:28 PM newnickname
quote: Then why do blacks get so upset when white comedians tell anti black jokes?
You don't think the historical imbalance of power would have something to do with this?
When ordinary Russians told mean and spiteful jokes about their communist government, they were often funny. (They also told mean and spiteful jokes about ordinary Russians, and they were funny too.) If the dictators and secret police had told mean and spiteful jokes about the people they oppressed (and probably they did), that would have left a bad taste in the mouth, surely. The jokes could even have been the same jokes, with some of the wording changed, but surely you can see that distinguishing between them, according to who was poking fun at whom, would not have been a double standard.
The situation in the US isn't as extreme as that, of course, but surely you can see the parallel. The principle is the same. Blacks telling jokes about whites is different from whites telling jokes about blacks, because of the particular context and history of the US. It's not a double standard, it's just ordinary, human sensitivity.
In the same way, Baldwin's comments are affected by the context. Losing it with your child might be more forgivable in a harrassed and poor working single mother, than in a pampered millionaire. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 02:42 PM Scotty
quote: Blacks telling jokes about whites is different from whites telling jokes about blacks
Oh! I see! Now I completely understand. Roll Eyes
Although, I do realize that this is typical of liberal thinking.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Originally posted by newnickname: Blacks telling jokes about whites is different from whites telling jokes about blacks, because of the particular context and history of the US.
You're nuts. It is this reasoning that won't allow us to rid ourselves, as a society, of racism. We've come a long way; no need to let 'history' keep us from moving forward. It's time to put it aside and recognize each other as equals. We are, after all, an intelligent society? ************************************************** 04-26-07, 03:48 PM newnickname What you guys say would be fine, if racism really was history in the US. You could maybe kid yourselves more effectively that there's no difference between blacks joking and whites joking if, for example, the de facto apartheid of the US education system could be eliminated.
The fact is that people are still not treated equally in the US, and don't really have equal opportunity, so jokes told by people from different goups come across differently. To pretend you don't notice this is to be deliberately obtuse.
Baldwin's story is maybe an example of the de facto class system in the US, and how it affects news telling. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 04:41 PM Scotty I don't care how you try to rationalize it. One racists is just as bad as another. Racism is racism whether blacks are doing it or whites doing it.
This ridiculous assumption that it is ok for one group to spout racism against another, and taboo for the other group is just plain ludicrous.
It will never end as long as someone is out there stirring the pot. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 04:49 PM frankvan I'm afraid that this pretense that racism directed against whites is identical to white racism against blacks, is symptomatic of latent bigotry. No one in his right mind believes for an instant that the discrimination and injustic which blacks in this country have suffered for as long as the country exists, has disappeared. It has become a fait accompli for those who are content with the status quo, not with those who have inherited its remnants.
You say, and I can appreciate that "we have come a long way". I have served in an Army of the United States in which some of my fellow soldiers were segregated, until President Truman set things right. If we are honest we will recognize that the progress that has been accomplished was done by force of law, against a lot of protest, and always and invariably, at the behest of Scotty's hated liberals. Those staunch defenders of law and order, the conservative citizens, prefer the status quo or reversion to the glorious past. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 05:17 PM Scotty
quote: No one in his right mind believes for an instant that the discrimination and injustic which blacks in this country have suffered for as long as the country exists, has disappeared
I do not think that anyone said it has disappeared. This does not give anyone the right to spout racism against another group. This is only making the situation worse, not improving it by any means.
quote: I'm afraid that this pretense that racism directed against whites is identical to white racism against blacks, is symptomatic of latent bigotry.
Racism is racism period. There is no difference. It should not be.
quote: Those staunch defenders of law and order, the conservative citizens, prefer the status quo or reversion to the glorious past.
I don't see any evidence that supports this theory, and I don't believe this to be true. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 05:35 PM Valor D It has to end somewhere, frank.
To replace bigotry against one group of people with bigotry against another group of people is still... bigotry.
Or, are you of the belief that two wrongs can somehow make a right?
For once, I am in shock and awe that I find myself completely in agreement with Scotty (excluding his comment about liberals, that is).
And, by the way, so-called "whites" can and are discriminated against based on the color of their skin, all the time. Go into the ghetto sometime and we'll see how long you last. And, it's not even necessary to go there to experience racism (or what the politically correct call "reverse racism", though it's really just racism). Just come across anyone of color who still harbors hatred of "the evil white man", and you've already got the cards stacked against you. They will inevitably treat you differently than they would someone of their own color.
But, why? My Dad didn't come to this country until 1967, yet because of the way that I look, I have been and will be discriminated against, just because I happen to share some of the same physical traits as the picture in their mind of people who used to own slaves (Truth be told, some of the biggest slave traders/owners in America were people of color! This is an uncommon Fact, but a Fact, none-the-less).
For crying out loud, the Civil War ended nearly 150 years ago! There's not a soul still alive who was ever a slave in America (at least not in the traditional sense).
The only way to end this kind of thinking is to stop treating one group of people differently for this reason, or another group differently for that reason. And, to embrace complete and utter equality. It's may be difficult, and it's going to take time, but it's the only way things will ever change. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 06:17 PM newnickname I think we all agree on how things should be, and that racism is a wrong based on artificial and destructive notions.
Nevertheless, racism itself is real and, because of it, the same joke told by a black person and by a white person can sound different.
You can say the joke should sound the same all you like; the fact is it doesn't. It doesn't sound the same any more than a dirty joke told by my father-in-law (an ex-welder from the Glasgow shipyards, who uses '****' as punctuation) sounds the same as the same joke told by me (an effette, tree-hugging liberal, who almost never even thinks '****').
On the one hand the joke's funny, on the other embarrassing. You could say that's unfair and a double-standard, and shouldn't be so, but there it is. It's a fact. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 06:41 PM Scotty
quote: Nevertheless, racism itself is real and, because of it, the same joke told by a black person and by a white person can sound different.
You can say the joke should sound the same all you like; the fact is it doesn't. It doesn't sound the same any more than a dirty joke told by my father-in-law (an ex-welder from the Glasgow shipyards, who uses '****' as punctuation) sounds the same as the same joke told by me (an effette, tree-hugging liberal, who almost never even thinks '****').
On the one hand the joke's funny, on the other embarrassing. You could say that's unfair and a double-standard, and shouldn't be so, but there it is. It's a fact.
Sorry, NNN, but this does not make any sense at all. ************************************************** 04-26-07, 07:35 PM newnickname It's not so difficult. I've been explaining that a black person telling a joke can be different from a white person telling the same joke - especially if the joke is about race. This is not a complex idea. Maybe it shouldn't be different - in an ideal world without racism, but we don't live in an ideal world. The playing field is not level.
The fundamental idea is that the same words take on different meanings in different contexts - with different speakers and audiences. Shakespeare actually means something different to us than to his original audiences - we can't hear it like they did. (The same kind of thing applies to the Bible, but saying that is what sent old mahal off the edge.)
It's also true that jokes told by the less powerful against the more powerful tend to be more acceptable than jokes told by the more powerful against the less. Sorry, I know that's horribly unfair and adds to divisiveness, but there it is; I didn't invent human psychology.
The fact is that, in general, there is still insititutionalised racism in the US (there's an example in the link I posted above, in US education) in which black people can come off the worse. That can make jokes told by black people about white significantly different from the other way about.
Maybe what you've missed is that I've never said it's OK for anyone to make racist remarks - just that there are degrees of unacceptability and viciousness, depending on the direction in which the remarks are travelling (from the more powerful to the less or vice versa), the irony or intent involved (that persona thing) and, of course, the humour. Sick and nasty jokes can be funny. (Imus wasn't funny, which is maybe the main problem - his comments just landed all wrong, and as a paid communicator and entertainer he can't affford to foul up his communication that way.)
Similarly, the same words yelled by a harrassed mother of twelve living in a shoe would be taken differently from how they were in a transatlantic phone call from a movie star. Context is important - we don't communicate in a vacuum or an ideal world. ************************************************** 04-27-07, 07:56 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Maybe what you've missed is that I've never said it's OK for anyone to make racist remarks...
But you're sure making one gallant attempt to justify one particular facet of racism. ************************************************** 04-27-07, 08:51 AM frankvan It occurs to me, Kendor and Scotty, that perhaps your ability to see equivalence between two "aspects" of racism, is because you don't full appreciate how equality can encompass very different situations. I love both of my children equally, but treat them as individuals. Treating them both in identical ways would be unfair to both precisely because they ARE individuals. When I go into the ghetto as someone suggests, I would be a simpleton to think that my white skin did not make me a target of racist resentment. The difference between the two of you and myself being that I realize all too well that a long history of injustice against some of our citizens explains the existence of the ghetto. In other countries and other people, the victims were different colors and ethnicities and religions. I'm reasonably sure that in everyone of those cases the oppressor classes were more inclined to be "unaware" of any difference between the hatred they encountered in those ghettoes, and the hatred that was responsible for the existence of the ghettoes.
Like Newnickname, I have never said that racism was alright, or acceptable; but I do say it is understandable and forgivable when I am the occasional target. I don't like it, but as a charter member and contributor to Morris Dees Southern Poverty Law Center, I have been fighting it as best I can for most of my life. We have put many hate groups out of business when the local governments refused or were unable to function effectively because of community-wide racism, by bringing civil suits against them, and bankrupting them. The proceeds have always been used to repay the victims of hate groups or their survivors.
As to humor, if you don't get it, it ain't funny. Richard Pryor, Damon Wayans, Chris Rock, or Red Foxx, aren't always politically correct, and sometimes downright profane, obscene or racist. But they can be pretty damned funny - IMHO. When and if racism is really a thing of the past racist jokes will become meaningless, but self-deprecating humor will probably always exist. ************************************************** 04-27-07, 09:33 AM newnickname
quote: But you're sure making one gallant attempt to justify one particular facet of racism.
No, I'm not. I'm not justifying anything - I'm pointing out the truism that the same joke told by different people in different circumstances can have different impact, intention and meaning.
A joke about the afterlife told by the guy with his head in the noose is going to sound different from - somehow more acceptable and maybe even funnier than - the same joke told by the hangman.
Jokes about class or race told by members of (percieved) relatively advantaged groups are going to come off as more offensive than similar jokes told by those less advantaged.
It's not fair, I know (like when you hit your little sister because she hit you and you got yelled at even though you did exactly the same thing to her that she did to you, and, and...) but there it is. ************************************************** 04-27-07, 02:53 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: I realize all too well that a long history of injustice against some of our citizens explains the existence of the ghetto.
Would you mind explaining that statement? I thought the ghetto was just where the poorer urban people live. Every big city has one. When you start to see old run down houses and buildings covered in spray paint and gang signs, you're probably there. But, how does injustice explain that? ************************************************** 04-27-07, 03:09 PM frankvan ghetto[1,noun]ghetto[2,transitive verb]ghetto blaster
Main Entry: 1ghet·to Pronunciation: 'ge-(")tO Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural ghettos also ghettoes Etymology: Italian, from Venetian dialect ghèto island where Jews were forced to live, literally, foundry (located on the island), from ghetàr to cast, from Latin jactare to throw -- more at JET 1 : a quarter of a city in which Jews were formerly required to live 2 : a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure 3 a : an isolated group b: a situation that resembles a ghetto especially in conferring inferior status or limiting opportunity ************************************************** 04-27-07, 03:34 PM Valor D Who's forcing anyone to live there, frank?
Aren't they free to leave anytime they wish?
Or, better yet, why don't they just clean up their neighborhoods? ************************************************** 04-27-07, 05:33 PM Kendor
quote:
Originally posted by frankvan: The difference between the two of you and myself being that I realize all too well that a long history of injustice against some of our citizens explains the existence of the ghetto. 0
No, I realize that, and I'm sure Scotty does as well, but this is the 21st century. Blacks havemoreopportunity than ever in this country these days. The problem is that the majority of blacks have become dependent on the notion that they, personally, are owed something by the whites, (least of all an apology), and spend most of their time stewing over it instead of getting over it. If they want an apology, sorry, but those who are at fault are long dead. In fact, using their logic, blacks should thank us white Americans. It was the Europeans that spawned the Atlantic Slave Trade, and Abolitionism came about through free white americans.
ValorD is spot on here. There's no reason those neighborhoods can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps. This is 2007 for crying out loud.
Stop making excuses for racism and steer your energies toward something more worthwhile. ************************************************** 04-27-07, 06:25 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: ghetto[1,noun]ghetto 3 a : an isolated group b : a situation that resembles a ghetto especially in conferring inferior status or limiting opportunity _____________________________________________________ Hi Frank:
Regarding "limiting opportunity":
You know, as well as I do ,that the only way out of any ghetto is through Education.
So, I don't care how much money you put into Ghetto schools...if those who attend them continue to drop out before graduation.
I don't care how many great teachers you put into those schools,the teacher's time is wasted ...if those who attend continue to drop out.
How do propose to keep these kids in school long enough to graduate...so that they can get better jobs and enable them to leave the Ghetto???
Every time some kid drops out he, or she ,is limiting his ,or her ,opportunity...they limit their opportunity by the very action of dropping out.
AnswerPool.com 