Do you think Don Imus should be fired for his comments???
Do you think Rosie O'Donnell should be fired for her comments???
Do you think that everyone should be fired from their job because their views don't agree with yours???
Do you think YOU should be fired from YOUR job for making dumb,stupid or insensitive statements ???
I listened to The View this morning and Rosie was defending Don Imus...evidently Rosie realized that if Imus could be fired ,so could she.
I always remember the words of Liberal Noam Chomsky:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,we don't believe in it at all."
What are your thoughts on the subject???
hippolips **************************************** 04-10-07, 01:14 PM Sherasi To me, freedom of speech means discussing FACTS and not stating opinions or lies that can hurt another persons feelings or reputation.
Calling someone a "nappy 'woman of negitiable values'" is an inflammatory opinion that isn't contructive criticism and is only said to hurt feelings.
I don't think he should get fired, but he SHOULD be suspended and fined.. and maybe even get some community service in the bargain.
I think firing is warranted when a persons wellbeing is drastically effected.. for example saying untruths that would cause a business to lose credibility in the publics eyes and the owner/s lose their shirt over it. **************************************** 04-10-07, 02:28 PM Koz I am a firm believer in free speech. To me it has nothing to do with speaking only of truths or facts. You should be allowed to say whatever you want, about whoever or whatever you want, whenever you want, but I also believe there are consequences for saying such things. (Such as being banned from a web site Wink , fired from your job, arrested for screaming “fire” in a movie theater, making a bomb threats ect)
Do I think Don Imus should be suspended or fired for what he said? Absolutely not, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants on his radio program as long as it adheres to FCC guidelines. I don’t agree with the FCC guidelines, but they are the rules in place so they need to be followed or there will be consequences. (Large fines, and termination)
Don Imus did not violate any FCC rule in saying what he did. He can be fired by the station owners if they don’t agree with it, that is no one’s choice but their own. As long as he makes them tons of money they won’t fire him. He did not break any laws or FCC guidelines so he should not serve any “community service”.
Don Imus’s comments, while inappropriate he should be allowed to say them. He said it in a comedic nature. It was far from “hate speech” it was a lame attempt at getting some chuckles. People take comedy far too seriously sometimes. If the sponsors who pay top $$ to advertise on his show don’t find it funny they should stop buying airtime and he will be gone real fast.
If you don’t like what you hear on the radio, see on television, or read on a web site change the channel. If you can’t find something that you like, turn it off altogether.
In my opinion when people start banning words it is the beginning of the end of true freedom. You should be allowed to scream all the racial epithets (or whatever else) you want, but remember the consequences.
I do not use racial epithets myself, and even have fired someone for constantly saying them, but that is my right as an employer to do so. I won’t tolerate them in my place of business, and have even had a few physical altercations due to some bigoted idiots, but those are the consequences of free speech.
I do think that Don Imus should have apologized (and he did) and I also think he should stop apologizing and get on with his life and career. **************************************** 04-10-07, 03:21 PM frankvan I think that "groveling" more adequately describes what Don Imus has been doing than "apologizing". I do think that free speech is important and our rights to it should not be abridged; however, bad manners and obnoxious behavior are not necessary under any circumstances. Calling a bunch of young college athletes "nappy-headed Ho's" isn't too different from what some so-called comics, of either race resort to almost daily. It isn't funny, but there is a subtle difference between a black comic poking fun at members of his own race by caricaturing racial stereotypes, a la Damon Wayans for example, and a white "shock jock" like Imus using the same expressions. Anyone insensitive enough not to realize that difference needs to tread carefully in a public forum.
As to punishment for being insensitive, or stupid. I think the suspension is adequate, but his public will determine that. His sponsors will watch carefully for how the ratings react following his return, and act accordingly. **************************************** 04-10-07, 03:28 PM newnickname Rutgers Team to Meet with Don Imus **************************************** 04-10-07, 04:18 PM aminator2002 Of course I really believe in freedom of speech. I guess Don Imus is a talk show host and his listeners think he's funny. I've never listened to him before, so I have no idea if he is funny or not. MSNBC is a corporation that pays Imus to draw an audience and sell commercials. His views don't necessarily represent MSNBC, but when they diverge and cause this kind of turmoil for the corporation, it's certainly reasonable to consider letting him go.
It's not whether or not his views agree with mine, I have no idea. I think he was highly offensive to a specific group of people that deserved no offense from him. He called them "nappy headed ho's" I mean come on... what an ass and an idiot.
It's not a matter of whether I think I should be fired from my job for making dumb or insensitve statements... I would be, period. If I said anything like that in a professional context I would absolutely lose my job. One of my coworkers lost his job for making a racial comment. Of course he should have lost his job... it was a totally inappropriate comment and he had no business talking like that in front of others on the job.
I believe that Don Imus has the right to say whatever he wants, I just don't think anybody has to pay him for it. **************************************** 04-10-07, 04:36 PM juanruiz I just must not be with it, but I am at a loss as to what some people consider to be humor. I may be a snob, but I think humor should be intelligent, witty, challenge your brain. Imus, or Rickles, for that matter, who use insults and call them humorous, have never impressed me. Johnny Carson's Karnak schtiks, George Carlin, the old Bill Cosby routines from the 60s...they were funny. **************************************** 04-10-07, 04:42 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: I think that "groveling" more adequately describes what Don Imus has been doing than "apologizing". I do think that free speech is important and our rights to it should not be abridged; however, bad manners and obnoxious behavior are not necessary under any circumstances. Calling a bunch of young college athletes "nappy-headed Ho's" isn't too different from what some so-called comics, of either race resort to almost daily. It isn't funny, but there is a subtle difference between a black comic poking fun at members of his own race by caricaturing racial stereotypes, a la Damon Wayans for example, and a white "shock jock" like Imus using the same expressions. Anyone insensitive enough not to realize that difference needs to tread carefully in a public forum.
Hi Frank:
Unless I'm terribly wrong Stevie Wonder uses the term "nappy headed " in one of his songs.It happens to be a Black expression.
I just don't buy that crap that says Blacks can use the "N" words ,but no one else can.I won't use the word , but if others choose to use it ,that's ok with me.
You see I don't believe in banning words that are objectional.
When you do that it doesn't make you any different from those who advocate burning books,and I'm sure you don't advocate book burning.
When things offend me ,I change the radio or tv station,or stop reading that book or newspaper.I still have that choice.
When we go down the slippery slope of banning those with whom we disagree ,what's next.
When we can silence Don Imus ,or Rosie O'Donnell ,or Jessie Jackson[remember Hymie Town???],then we can also silence you or me or anyone on this site.
When we silence the words you are about to use,we can also silence the subjects we can talk about...and then,my friend,we will have no freedom of speech...the ballgame will be over.
hippolips
P.S. I have never listened to Don Imus,but I watch Rosie almost daily.
Edited to remove line causing page distortion.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow, 04-10-07 07:13 PM **************************************** 04-10-07, 04:53 PM honilov I believe in freedom of speech and when someone calls a group of athletes 'nappy headed ho's' for no apparent reason except his ignorance, he is the one with the problem and not the athletes. It's apparent that Mr. Imus is suffering from a lack of something, and he must feel better to lash out at someone else. No need to fire him because that won't remove the seed that's planted in him.
It really wouldn't bother me if he called me a nappy headed ho, because I know who I am. I've been called a lot worse by Wildflower and MommyTimesTwo because of my race. I wouldn't give a hoot. **************************************** 04-10-07, 05:27 PM babthrower I have never believed in freedom of speech.
People who live in groups have no absolute freedoms. We believe we have the right to come and go freely, but we can't go into our neighbor's house without his permission.
We have freedom to pursue happiness, but not if in our pursuit of happiness we decide we need our neighbor's kids, spouse and car.
We have the right to freedom from want but if we use our resources foolishly the state cannot guarantee that we will never be in want. To make that freedom absolute would create an injustice against those who are provident.
When we see a right limited it is usually because to have that right unlimited will injure someone else. So we have legislation so we can't stir up hatred against others because of their color, ethnic origin, sex or religion if we don't like it.
We have freedom of speech but if we give false testimony in a trial we can be jailed for perjury.
And so on. **************************************** 04-10-07, 06:33 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by babthrower: I have never believed in freedom of speech.
________________________________________________
Hi Babs:
That sounds fine until the day that someone denies YOUR right to speak your mind.
I'll bet you'll change your mind in a hurry.
It's only when your ox gets gored that free speech becomes important.
hippolips **************************************** 04-10-07, 06:35 PM Georgia85 With all that's going on in the world did we really need a 45 min press conference with all the team members being pulled out of classes to sit there and tell the press how hurt their feelings were? Grow some thicker skin and get over it. The time would have been better spent discussing ways to lower gas prices! Smile **************************************** 04-10-07, 07:04 PM frankvan "You see I don't believe in banning words that are objectional."
Where have you seen anyone on this thread advocate "banning" words, objectionable or not?
"That sounds fine until the day that someone denies YOUR right to speak your mind."
Can't you see the difference between "denying" and "limiting"? If not, that may explain your strange defense of the right to be obnoxious. To refrain from delivering gratuitous insults without justification, to behave towards others with tact, consideration, and courtesy, really doesn't require a constitutional SCOTUS ruling. Is that too much to expect? **************************************** 04-10-07, 08:02 PM babthrower Lips sez: "That sounds fine until the day that someone denies YOUR right to speak your mind."
People have been denying my right to say whatever I choose for my entire life.
When I was in school, I could not talk out when the teacher was talking, or when another student was asking or answering. I would be punished.
When I wanted to tell the cops that my brother had broken the cop-car window because I wanted him punished for tattling on me to my parents the day before, I knew that if I did, I would get in trouble if they found out it wasn't true. Again, my freedom to speak my mind was curtailed.
I cuss when I'm mad. But I don't rage and cuss in front of small children because it could seriously frighten them. So in that case I voluntarily limit my own freedom of speech.
Grow up, Lips. No freedom is absolute. There are all kinds of consequences to saying false, cruel, hurtful, damaging things. At the very least, someone can want to hurt you back. So that's why we save our right to free speech to things that are important. It contributes to public order.
It can keep some lunatic from walking up and down in front of your house carrying a sign and yelling that you are a convicted pedophile, if you're not.
It's sort of like road rage. You can't drive 'freely' on the road. You can't act as if there are no consequences to your actions including your choice of words.
So what's all this in aid of, Lips? Whose ox do you want to gore?
Has mean old DG trimmed one of your posts?
Or do you want to urge supremacy of the set to which you belong over a protected group? You want to use your freedom of speech to urge the limitation of the constitutional rights of some other set to which you yourself do not belong?
How intriguing. If so, it would be hard to tell us about it without getting censored.
Well, you could always say, "Yes, I want to say that certain x's should not have the right to do y, which I can do."
Help us out a little, will you? **************************************** 04-10-07, 08:14 PM DorianGreyed Mean Old DG leaves tracks when he trims posts. **************************************** 04-10-07, 08:34 PM methos Do I think Imus should be fired? I frankly don't care.
The better question is, does this have anything to do with freedom of speech? Nope.
Imus is free to call anyone he wants a nappy-headed ho. That doesn't mean that NBC or CBS have to continue to pay him to do it or to pay to air it.
Imus is free to go much further than that, but if NBC and CBS don't want to pay him to do it, he may just have to use his freedom of speech the way the rest of us do: without a radio and television show. **************************************** 04-10-07, 08:43 PM Valor D If not for the first amendment (Freedom of Speech), people like Howard Stern and Michael Moore would be making their statements from prison, limited to the population of the prison yard, instead of America!
Freedom of Speech is an American Fundamental, and those who try to deny others of it are truly deserving of the title, "Unamerican." **************************************** 04-10-07, 10:05 PM Kendor In a nut shell:
Is there such a thing as a "Nappy-headed Ho?"
Are these girls "Nappy-headed Ho's??
Doesn't matter. The man [Imus] was way out of line. Period.
Fire his bum and get on with real news.
And tell Al Sharpton to just shut up already. No offense intended, just sick of racial bias, on his part. **************************************** 04-10-07, 10:19 PM coldfuse I don't listen to Imus and would not have been aware of the comments at all unless the media had made such a big fuss over it. I suspect that most people who have been hurt or offended by the comments would otherwise not have heard them.
That the crusade to fire him is being led by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton has made it a circus.
I had friends call me nappy-headed in high school. A friend in college had the nickname of "nappy." I am caucasion. Is the expression racial?
By the way, the young ladies on the Rutgers basketball team seem top drawer.
If the network wants to fire Imus for any non-discriminatory reason, or for no reason whatsoever, it has the right to do so. Just like your employer. **************************************** 04-10-07, 11:34 PM babthrower I like that last post. It makes its point cleanly, without insulting anyone. But it makes its poin **************************************** 04-11-07, 08:10 AM frankvan Do you REALLY believe in freedom of speech??? Apropos of absolutely nothing: if the public wants to have news of the day available 24/7, someone will sponsor it. We will have to realize that some days nothing really earth-shattering happens. CNN can't always produce a tsunami, so stop bitching! Maybe a Don Imus goof or Anna Nicole's baby's father IS the only news.IMO. **************************************** 04-11-07, 08:12 AM Koz For those who don’t listen to, or know about Don Imus he was born into a highly dysfunctional family (Like many other people) and tried to get out. He joined the Marine Corps and served in the late 1950’s and then did some “odd jobs” for a few years.
His radio career started out as a comedic “shock jock” in the late 1960’s in California. He lived a fast lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and was fired for his unreliability due to his addictions. He was the first “video jockey” when VH-1 launched back in 1985.
He got back into radio (In New York) shortly after the VH-1 gig. He quit using drugs and alcohol and has been clean and sober for about 19 years now.
He became nationally syndicated in the early 1990’s and his sarcastic wit was well known, but he managed to start getting powerful politicians (and high profile political wannabes) and high profile news anchors on his program as guests. Like him or not the people in power or seeking power jockeyed for prime positioning on his show knowing that he is indeed a highly intelligent man that speaks to a large audience. (He plays a dope, but is not really one Wink )
President Clinton was on his show several times, mostly when he was originally seeking the presidency, but did go on once while he was president. Imus poked fun at the president right to his face and President Clinton took it all in stride as it was meant. (sarcastic humor)
That almost got him fired due to he “picked on” everyone you can imagine, many of them his friends. Some people took offence in what he said (In particular the first lady) and lobbied to get him fired. He survived that fight and it actually caused him to gain in popularity.
In the 1990’s Don Imus used his position and wealthy friends to raise a lot of money. He used this money and built a ranch in New Mexico that provides an escape of sorts for children with cancer and siblings of SIDS victims. It is a place the kids get to forget their troubles and be a real “cowboy” or “cowgirl” for a while. Don Imus is not an invisible person to these children, he is very “hands on” and along with his wife (a devout vegan who turned Imus into a vegetarian, as that happened there was some funny stuff there) show the kids a good time. He even broadcasts his radio and television show from there over the summer (The rest of his crew broadcast from New York) so he could spend as much time as he can with these children.
To be perfectly honest I used to listen to Imus a lot (when I could) from the late 1980’s to the middle 1990’s. Sometimes he was hysterical, other times he bombed. I have not listened to him much at all since then. It seemed to me his show evolved into a constant fundraiser for his ranch and he simply was not funny anymore, so I drifted away.
I do however support him 100% in this case. What he said was stupid and flat out not funny but that should not cost him his job. I just figured I would write this for those who know little or nothing about the man.
When you hang a man, you better look at him. (My favorite quote from the movie “ Hang ‘Em High ” and it fits well here.) **************************************** 04-11-07, 08:48 AM Valor D People like this thrive off of controversy. Whether you love him or hate him, you're still going to listen, either way. And, that's the name of the game: "Ratings". If not for stuff like this, we wouldn't be discussing him now. **************************************** 04-11-07, 01:42 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by babthrower: Lips sez: "That sounds fine until the day that someone denies YOUR right to speak you mind ".
So what's all this in aid of, Lips? Whose ox do you want to gore?
Has mean old DG trimmed one of your posts?
Hi Babs:
How would you know if"mean old DG trimmed" on of my posts???
To date,"mean old DG' has never trimmed one of my posts,and if he did,I think he would have the guts to admit it.
DG and I often disagree ,but he has always fought fair.
As for whose ox do I want to gore ???
I want to gore the ox of all those who don't believe in freedom of speech...
who want to burn books or ban them...
who want to silence everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view.
You see ,when you can silence MY point of view,there is always the danger that someone can come along and silence YOUR point of view.
Anytime any group [or Government} gets so powerful that they can give you everything,they are also so powerful that they can take everything away from you.
hippolips **************************************** 04-11-07, 02:11 PM honilov Hey Koz, it's very interesting reading your post about how Imus has ties to the people in power. I guess that gives him the right to show his ignorance. I agree that he shouldn't be fired because the dude didn't know any better.
Oh, by the way, do you remember what names Imus called Clinton, when he took it all in stride?
When you hang a man, you better look at him....even if there's nothing much to see. Wink **************************************** 04-11-07, 02:52 PM Koz Honilov, he did not call him any names that I remember and I did listen to the interview when it originally aired. Imus started the interview by saying:
“ Let me ask you something. What the hell is going on down there in that White House? What do you mean, you've lost your focus ?”
Imus was generally respectful to President Clinton and conducted a relatively serious interview. The topics ranged from the budget to the war in Serbia. It was Imus’s initial question that is what I was referring to “poking fun” at President Clinton. The president took it in stride and had a very good response, but I don’t remember it verbatim. The man is a quick thinker, very smart, and extremely well spoken. (President Clinton that is)
Imus is not necessarily ignorant, he is a little “edgy” sometimes and this lame attempt at “off the cuff” humor honestly was not funny to me. He has said a lot worse to more powerful people. He tries to get a rise out of them. He is a smart man, but sometimes acts stupid.
Don Imus has had a lot of powerful people on his show over the years including President Clinton, Senator Dole, Senator Kerry, Andy Rooney, Barbara Walters, Mike Wallace, Senator Dodd, George Stephanopoulos, Judy Woodruff, Maureen Dowd, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Lieberman, Larry King, Senator McCain, Oliver North, Anna Quindlen, Dan Rather, Tim Russert, General Schwarzkopf, Senator Torricelli, and James Carville to name a few.
Imus should have retired years ago in my opinion, but I guess it is hard to walk away from 8 million dollars a year Roll Eyes .
He is not much to look at either in my opinion Wink but before people (The public that does not know him) toss him to the wolves I just think they should know there is a lot more to the man than this whole idiotic circus. **************************************** 04-11-07, 10:32 PM coldfuse The Clinton-Imus Interview in 1994 is a reasonably pleasant exchange.
It seems as though some folks take a lot of things out of context. **************************************** 04-12-07, 05:37 AM RoverRoad The guy worked for a corporation, so free speech doesn't apply here. He's paid to say what they want him to say. If his boss doesn't like what he said, they have a right to fire him.
Just like with Answerpool. My posts get edited all the time so that you guys don't get offended. It's AnswerPool's right to do that because it's their website. **************************************** 04-12-07, 09:17 PM honilov There's nothing in the links remotely close to calling anyone a nappy-headed ho.
Ya know, the more it sinks in to what the dude said, the worst it sounds. He deserves whatever action that's taken against him. **************************************** 04-12-07, 10:20 PM hippolips First they silence him...
Then they silence her...
Then they silence me...
Then they silence you...
Get on board ,get on board ...
The Slippery Slope Express.
hippolips **************************************** 04-12-07, 10:56 PM DorianGreyed Hippo, did you get this upset when Jesse Jackson caught flack for calling NYC "Hymietown"? **************************************** 04-13-07, 05:36 AM Sherasi Dorian, Sagus asked this exact question when we were discussing this issue. **************************************** 04-13-07, 07:38 AM Lighteningrodd Latest word is, CBS has fired Don Imus. Following MSNBC dropping him. Seems to me who is really dictaing free speech is the program sponsors. **************************************** 04-13-07, 09:36 AM newnickname Is calling some basketball players 'whores' on air, for no particular reason except as an attempt at humour, really a free speech issue?
It's Imus' job to be entertaining and provocative, isn't it? If he's losing the ability to do that, and has become a verbal klutz, maybe his employers have the right to let him go - the same as if he were an over-the-hill sports star, or a furniture mover who couldn't lift stuff any more.
Apart from pointless rudeness, Imus' transgression is maybe that of an old codger trying to use hip slang which sounds totally inappropriate coming out of his mouth; as toe-curlingly embarrassing as watching your dad trying to boogie on down. What sponsor would want to be associated with that? **************************************** 04-13-07, 09:44 AM aminator2002 It's pretty disappointing to me that this is the most coverage the NCAA women's program has ever gotten. **************************************** 04-13-07, 11:56 AM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Hippo, did you get this upset when Jesse Jackson caught flack for calling NYC "Hymietown"?
_________________________________________
Hi dg:
Why would I be upset ...when the right Reverend Jackson turned out to be as racist as those he condemns ???
But if I were Jewish I would be very upset .
Or if I were a New Yorker I would be very upset.
hippolips **************************************** 04-13-07, 12:07 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by newnickname: Is calling some basketball players 'whores' on air, for no particular reason except as an attempt at humour, really a free speech issue ?
___________________________________________ Hi NN:
Of course ,it's a free speech issue!!!
It's just one more attempt to determine who has a right to speak and who has not.
When someone attempts to deny YOUR right to speak out on any subject...
we'll see if it's a free speech issue then.
First they silence him...
Then they silence her...
Then they silence me...
Then they silence you..
Get on board,Get on board,The Slippery Slope Express.
Now who doesn't get it ???
hippolips **************************************** 04-13-07, 01:22 PM Scotty It is a sad thing to see people celebrating the condemnation of free speech. **************************************** 04-13-07, 01:24 PM methos
quote: Of course ,it's a free speech issue!!! .... When someone attempts to deny YOUR right to speak out on any subject...
No one is denying Imus the right to say what he wants. Free speech doesn't mean CBS, MSNBC, their various advertisers, and the people who buy those various advertisers' products have to pay for it. I don't have a national radio & TV show, do you? Are we being denied our rights to free speech?
That's not to say I would've fired him, but people have the right to decide not to spend their money to give Imus a radio & TV show. **************************************** 04-13-07, 01:30 PM Scotty
quote: Hippo, did you get this upset when Jesse Jackson caught flack for calling NYC "Hymietown"?
Why get upset? Everyone knows that Jackson and Sharpton are about as racists as they come. Talk about Hypocrites.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I think it's absolute BS that Don Imus got fired. I put BS there because I am on a company website, so freedom of speech is determined by the owner. That is the only time speech can be controlled. I don't like what happened to Don Imus at all, but he is on radio under contract of a TV station and they make the rules.
What happened to him though in my opinion is a tragedy. What he said by calling the Rutgers team, "A bunch of nappy headed ho's." isn't as bad as what I hear on rap and hip hop records everyday, but nobody stops that. I love rap, I am a big fan. I don't think what Imus said was bad, not even on the same level as the vulgarity that is spit on one Too $hort song, or a Brotha Lynch song.
What I want to know is, why is it blacks can call every other race any name in the book and it's ok. The very second a white says something it is "Absolutely racist and un-called for." Yes I called you blacks, not African American. Just like how I am Oriental, not Asian American. We need to quit being so sensitive about issues, next thing you know we're going to be saying, hey he's not a garbageman, that man is a waste management specialist......
Don Imus being fired is so wrong, and Al Sharpton is an idiot.... ************************************************** 04-13-07, 01:37 PM hippolips Hi Gang:
Channel 7 in L.A.today announced that Reverend Al Sharpton was going to take on the Black Rap Artists next.
Better be careful, Al, those guys kill those with whom they do not agree.
quote: What happened to him though in my opinion is a tragedy. What he said by calling the Rutgers team, "A bunch of nappy headed ho's." isn't as bad as what I hear on rap and hip hop records everyday, but nobody stops that.
Ron my dear, I totally agree that the rap artists go too far with their choice of language, but what you seem to not understand is that Imus was talking about a direct group of people (athletes with names and feelings) The rappers aren't talking about anyone in particular and they are not saying it out of racism or hate (big difference). Anyway, this is not about the rappers, one has nothing to do with the other. This is about Imus and it's no need to throw this all in together.
The issues of the rappers should be brought to the limelight as another issue, that's totally separate from Imus.
The rappers are not just talking about 'black women' they are talking about 'women'. I agree that rappers are not respecting women, and women are not respecting themselves (all races). If women would respect themselves, maybe the rappers would respect their character.
Now, before someone accuse me of defending the rappers, you better re-read my post. I'm all about reality, regardless of who it is. ************************************************** 04-14-07, 07:34 AM RoverRoad What I find weird is that there are so many people that feel sorry for Imas. They guy had it coming for years. Now Savage had better be worried because he's worse than Imas ever was. I listened to Imas for 7 years in Portland. Can't say I ever liked the guy, but there was nothing else good to listen to.
My hat's off to the advertisers that didn't want to be associated with this man's show. And shame on the networks for only taking action after the advertisers made their move. By the way, what's the big surprise about this being advertiser driven. The biggest department in a radio station is the advertising department. Without the ads they aren't anything. Do you really thing their on the air because they want to provide a public service?
I think making rappers and comedians live up to the same standard is wrong. Because that does get into the free speech area. We have NEVER had free speech on the radio, ever in this country, even public radio is regulated.
Imas needs to make the move to Satellite radio like Stern did, and who wants to bet me that we'll be hearing him on XM pretty soon? They already have shows like his, and worse on Satellite. ************************************************** 04-14-07, 08:38 AM Lighteningrodd It is not just in situations like this where free speech is regulated. While radio/TV announcers fall under a lot of scrutiny, many celebrities, actors, & sports personalities who voice their views also tend to receive fall out, especially when they tend to express unpopular opinions. And for some it has had some very dramatic & unforseen impact on their careers. ************************************************** 04-14-07, 09:57 AM RoverRoad Then they shouldn't say it. You have to be willing to accept the consequences for the things that you say. People like Stern, Imus, That Kramer guy from Seinfeld, and mel Gibson all learned the hard way that when you run your mouth off people get angry. I can think of a couple of things that I want to say today that would get me kicked off of AnswerPool, but I know better. I don't feel like paying the consequences. ************************************************** 04-14-07, 09:57 AM aminator2002 LR - There was no regulation here. The company that was Imus's employer fired him.
Freedom of speech is a freedom from regulation by the US government, not from CBS corp.
Being a public person means that when you do or say offensive things, there will be some fallout.
And seriously - was Imus expressing an opinion? Was he trying to make a statement about any particular viewpoint that he treasured? No, he was just a fool. ************************************************** 04-15-07, 07:18 PM hippolips Hi Gang:
Who's next???
Do we go after Kathy Griffin...
who has made a career out of savaging Ryan Secrest..
or Jay Leno who has done the same...or David Letterman who has also done the same???
Or how about Don Rickels who has picked on Blacks for years ???
Or Bill Maher ,who picks on everyone,especially the Catholics???
Or don't we do it ...if the one they want to silence is a favorite of yours???
Or Carlos Mencia or Paul Rodrigous or George Lopez ???
Or Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert ???
When do we stop or do we ???
The Slippery Slide had begun.
hippolips
P.S. I listen to all of those cited above...I may not agree with them... but I'm still interested in what they have to say.
It's called free speech..you see I don't have to listen to any of them...
I still know how to change a channel,or turn a knob ,or turn a page ,or put down a book. ************************************************** 04-15-07, 07:40 PM DorianGreyed Hippo, you just don't get it. Imus lost his job because his advertising dollars were leaving him in droves. Should NBC or CBS continue to pay him even though his show's revenue was bailing out? Imus is still free to say whatever he wants, but he will no longer get paid to say it. If you feel this is unfair, write his former employers. If you feel strongly that he is getting screwed, send him some money. (He probably doesn't need it, but maybe it will comfort him in his get-away home in the SouthWest. ) Demand that Arsenio Hall and Pat Sajak get their late-night talk shows back. Maybe you should write your Congressman and tell him that you think everybody should get paid for speaking.
While you are protesting, lodge a protest for me, too. I want to get paid for saying what I want. Scotty could probably use a few dollars for his words, too. (Just don't expect JohnGalt to get paid by the word.) ************************************************** 04-15-07, 08:33 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by SeattleRon:
I think it's absolute BS that Don Imus got fired...
What happened to him though in my opinion is a tragedy.
A tragedy? The tragedy is that people seem to be more interested in this, and the Duke lacrosse players, than they are in what is really important in our world.
The manufactured outrage, the posturing, I mean it does have some entertainment value, but in a few months this will be mostly forgotten. In a few months tens of thousands of people will still be dead in Iraq. Thousands of American families will still be broken, their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers dead or injured because of a needless war.
Our government will still be fighting for it's life, after a six year assault by the Repuglicans.
But who cares? Imus better hope a blonde woman doesn't come up missing! ************************************************** 04-16-07, 07:50 AM babthrower Lips would take away a fundamental right -- that of an employer to hire and fire without outside interference -- from CBS radio.
Funny, I would have guessed him to be one who would support the right of the employer to fire an employee for any reason. Privilege of the free enterprise system.
I don't see that anyone has prevented Imus from saying what he wants to say. But the people who pay his salary have said they'd just as soon not give him a paycheck any more, or let him use their facilities to broadcast his views. That's their right.
He can sue them for it, and if a court decides their reasons are insufficient, he can recover some money. With it he can start his own radio station, and look for sponsors. Then he'd have to deal with sponsors who pull their ads if they don't like what he says, or the way he says it, or the way he parts his hair.
Or he can go it alone. Like I.F.Stone did. Now THERE was a man with guts. ************************************************** 04-16-07, 01:34 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Hippo, you just don't get it. Imus lost his job because his advertising dollars were leaving him in droves. Should NBC or CBS continue to pay him even though his show's revenue was bailing out?
_________________________________________________ Hi dg:
Imus didn't lose his job until those two Icons of Virtue, Al [Twana Brawley]Sharpton and Jesse[Hymie Town]Jackson ,decided to go after Imus.
The very same sponsors who bailed out on Imus were the same sponsors who had supported Imus for years.
They knew what Imus was prone to say and they never batted an eye.
This also goes for the network president ,who admitted that he listened to Imus daily and he never sought fit to reprimand him.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
I also listened to Rosie ODonnell's View this morning.
The audience was asked if they ever listened to Don Imus ; a show of hands indicated about 90% never listened to Don Imus.
hippolips ************************************************** 05-08-07, 10:33 AM newnickname The Post-Imus Conundrum ************************************************** 05-08-07, 11:37 AM DorianGreyed From the above link -
Imus's racism and homophobia have inspired protests for decades. And while many more people got involved this time--particularly black journalists--the crucial factor was the avalanche of exiting advertisers. Remember the sequence. First came the apologies and condemnations. Next came the suspensions. Finally came the ax, but only after Procter & Gamble, General Motors, American Express, GlaxoSmithKline and SprintNextel said they were leaving.
That pretty much should explain it for those that still see this as a free speech issue, although frankly, I really doubt it. Imus was an entertainer who lost sponsors. It's really cut and dried, except for those that like what he said and want to turn this into a "poor white guy doesn't get a break situation." Imus made millions of dollars on radio. He earned it by attracting sponsors. Now, he has lost sponsors, and with those sponsors, his job. Generally speaking, people risk losing their jobs if they aren't worth what they are paid.
Imus should have enough money to buy radio or TV time if he wants a national audience. Until then, he seems to have the same right to free speech as you and I do. We can speak freely, but few of us get paid for it.
Why don't those on AP who support Imus write him and ask him to buy AP from me? His money will solve most of my problems, and he'll have an audience again. That looks like a win/win situation to me. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 02:17 PM aminator2002 I blame Clinton. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 03:43 PM DorianGreyed Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea? (Or any combination thereof?) ************************************************** 05-08-07, 05:27 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: From the above link -
Imus's racism and homophobia have inspired protests for decades.
Oh, give me a break! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!
quote:
And while many more people got involved this time--particularly black journalists--the crucial factor was the avalanche of exiting advertisers. Remember the sequence. First came the apologies and condemnations. Next came the suspensions. Finally came the ax, but only after Procter & Gamble, General Motors, American Express, GlaxoSmithKline and SprintNextel said they were leaving.
That pretty much should explain it for those that still see this as a free speech issue, although frankly, I really doubt it. Imus was an entertainer who lost sponsors. It's really cut and dried, except for those that like what he said and want to turn this into a "poor white guy doesn't get a break situation." Imus made millions of dollars on radio. He earned it by attracting sponsors. Now, he has lost sponsors, and with those sponsors, his job. Generally speaking, people risk losing their jobs if they aren't worth what they are paid.
Imus should have enough money to buy radio or TV time if he wants a national audience. Until then, he seems to have the same right to free speech as you and I do. We can speak freely, but few of us get paid for it.
Why don't those on AP who support Imus write him and ask him to buy AP from me? His money will solve most of my problems, and he'll have an audience again. That looks like a win/win situation to me.
So, what I hear you saying is that the reason it became such an issue is because some journalists went after Imus with avengence. And, the sponsors were pressured into shifting into "politically correct" mode. Because, afterall, nobody wants to be perceived as sponsoring 'a racist white guy', right? However, if not for the color of Imus' skin, this would never have become an issue to begin with, correct?
You're just not getting the point here, DG. Free Speech applies to everyone. The fact that some people don't like what others have to say is nothing new. The fact that those journalists threw a 'hissy fit' and decided to go after Imus' blood over a mere JOKE just goes to show how insecure and immature they are. And, finally, the fact that the sponsors felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and threatened to pull their sponsorship unless Imus be fired is nothing short of blackmail.
Now, I don't see the point in pressing this any further. The issue is dead. Imus was fired. It's a done deal. Why beat a dead horse? ************************************************** 05-08-07, 06:31 PM DorianGreyed "Deal" is the appropriate word. It's business. Imus stopped bringing in sponsors and started losing sponsors. But if you want, you can pay him to speak. Otherwise, he has the same free speech rights as you and me. (I'm assuming that you don't get paid to speak; I know I don't. Now, neither does Imus. But he has free speech. What he doesn't have is someone paying him to speak.)
Why aren't you guys complaining about Pee Wee Herman? No one pays him to speak anymore. Are sponsor blackmailing him, too? What about Glen Campbell? Why did they take away his TV show? What about his right to free speech? What about Dennis Miller and his football gig? Where's his right to free speech? Arsenio Hall? Why can't Milli Vanilli get a paying gig anymore? Shouldn't they get paid, too? Entertainers get paid based on what they can draw. Imus' time expired, just like countless entertainers before him. That's show biz.
You want to end the discussion, but you don't understand the issue yet. It's all BU$INE$$. The US has always been about business. If you don't understand that, you'll never understand issues on a national scale. You seem to think that sponsors should be required to pay someone who causes them to lose business. The real world just doesn't work that way. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 06:37 PM frankvan
quote: Now, I don't see the point in pressing this any further. V.D
So? What are you doing here? Beating a dead horse? ************************************************** 05-08-07, 07:13 PM Valor D Do you REALLY believe in freedom of speech??? (106 Replies) Business. Yes, I can understand that.
So, just how much $$ is Free Speech worth? What's the going rate of individual Liberty these days?
What you don't realize is that little by little, the more of these cases which restrict free speech are allowed to occur, the less free speech has precendent, and the more censorship reigns. Whether it's about money, ego, or racism. It all boils down the same. And, in the end, the total price to pay may cost us all a lot more than you realize.
As the subject goes, "do you REALLY believe in freedom of speech?" Well, I guess you've answered the question your way, and I have answered it mine. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 07:35 PM methos I remain amazed by the inability to understand what "free speech" means.
Valor - I would like to have a radio program. Please send the necessary money my way. If you don't, you'll be denying me my freedom of speech, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 08:02 PM Valor D Something you should read:
quote: Originally posted by Valor D: Of all the articles and arguments I've heard and read about the subject thus far, this one by far makes the most sense:
BTW, Howard Stern proved a long time ago that "political correctness" has nothing to do with good ratings. Nobody wants to listen to a radio show host who has no personality, and never pushes the envelope. It's just the opposite that people want. That's the very appeal of "shock-jocks". Back in the 80's, about 50% of Stern's listeners hated him. Yet, they still listened. When asked why, they responded: "Because I want to hear what he's going to say next." ************************************************** 05-08-07, 08:38 PM newnickname Using racist language on air is hardly 'pushing the envelope'. It's more on a par with saying 'bum' in church and giggling until your mom slaps you. The shock jock routine may have been unpredictable in the 80s, but these days surely everyone knows pretty much what kind of thing any of these guys is going to say next on any topic. Yawn.
And, once again, what on earth has "political correctness" got to do with Imus' case? It was just plain old-fashioned rudeness - and not aimed at the kind of celebrities who are expected to be able to take it. The joke landed all wrong and fell flat. People got annoyed, the sponsors took fright, so Imus got fired. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 08:57 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: It was just plain old-fashioned rudeness - and not aimed at the kind of celebrities who are expected to be able to take it. The joke landed all wrong and fell flat. People got annoyed, the sponsors took fright, so Imus got fired.
My, my, my. A "rude" radio host, and "annoyed" people- will wonders never cease! Roll Eyes
I don't know what your radio shows are like in Canada, but here in the states, that's entirely normal. ************************************************** 05-08-07, 09:11 PM newnickname I think in Canada (and in the UK) it's generally recognised that if you're going to be rude on air, you need to be witty with it. It needs to be funny. Imus, apparently, wasn't.
Is it entirely normal in the US to describe this rudeness as 'pushing the envelope'? ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:49 AM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Using racist language on air is hardly 'pushing the envelope'.
I hear that all they play on the radio in Canada is Anne Murray and Gordon Langfort(sp.?) Not sure, but the music they play in the states has quite a bit of "racist language", most especially Rap. Even in popular music. Yet, does anyone complain? I can't accept it's just a coincidence that these people are dark skinned, and get away with it on a daily basis. While, someone of a lighter complexion like Imus gets fired for it. But, I'm not getting into all of that again. You want to re-read it, go back a few pages in this thread.
quote:
And, once again, what on earth has "political correctness" got to do with Imus' case?
Quite simply, because Imus' now infamous catch-phrase "nappy headed hoes" goes against what is commonly thought to be "politically correct". Especially due to the fact that it came from a so-called "white man". Which isn't right that makes a difference to people, but as was pointed out in this thread, that's reality. The guy had the cards stacked against him even before he opened his mouth!
There is a serious double-standard at work in the fact that so many people are out to crucify people like Imus then try so hard to justify it to themselves and to others, over something so petty; while turning a blind eye to all of the truly "racist" things going on in the world. Imus was just their 'whipping-boy' for Racism Awareness Month. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 09:22 AM aminator2002 Once again - if the government pulled the plug on Imus, that's a freedom of speech issue. He ticked off his sponsors and THEY pulled the plug. If you don't like how sponsors affect your talkshows then I highly recommend purchasing a satellite radio subscription because that form of broadcast is liberated from having to cow-tow to sponsors.
If you are mad that the will of the nation is that sponsors not throw large sums of money at idiots who obviously have poor taste and anger in their veins, then that's a different story, but constantly asserting that this is a free speech issue is making you look rather foolish.
If Imus had called a group of Spelling Bee contestents a really inappropriate derogatory term, then the outcome would have been the same. Sponsors don't want to stand with someone that is WAY OVER THE LINE of decency.
It may be correct to call it political correctness in some ways but it is not a problem of people thinking it's inappropriate to call a group of nice girls, nappy headed hoes, it is your beef that shock jocks have to bow to the will of their sponsors. There is nothing we can do to stop people from thinking what he said was despicable... it simply is and what he said was vile. He is not a god, he is a person with a job with boundaries that are set by those that pay his check. Those people are corporations that position themselves strategically to associations that help their product image.
Tough luck for Imus - he isn't a victim anymore than someone who got fired for losing their company a big account. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 09:37 AM newnickname
quote: Quite simply, because Imus' now infamous catch-phrase "nappy headed hoes" goes against what is commonly thought to be "politically correct".
Nonsense. 'Nappy headed' was a racial slur long before the phrase "politically correct' was ever thought of, and 'whore' has been an insult for even longer. "Commonly thought to be politically incorrect" by whom? How do you know the words weren't commonly thought just to be rude and childish?
Can you actually find a real instance of someone calling Imus' remarks "politically incorrect" (not just Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect")?
You do make a good point - that Imus' offence was in the end just words. There are far more serious forms of racism. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 11:02 AM babthrower (Sigh!)
Okay, Valor. Suppose you hire a stand-up comedian, let's call him Don, to come to your 20th anniversary party, and after the meal and the toasts, and before the d-jay starts the music, he starts his routine. He makes jokes about your trailer-trash house, your taste in furniture, your menial job, your wife's cooking, how fat you're getting, how ugly your kids are, and so on, to much laughter from those there. Then he calls your wife a sluttish whore. And then he says that you've been cheating on her with another guest, your best friend's wife, and he names your favorite motel.
Now you might laugh your head off, and even your wife might; but your adult son is starting to glare at this guy, and your adult daughter looks shocked. Neither is laughing. And your best friend is eyeing you in a very marked manner.
So your son goes over to the guy and has a quiet word with him. Then the guy starts screaming about censorship. "I'm just getting into the good stuff," Don says, "I've got another 20 minutes of material here!"
Your son says to him, "Don't you get it? What you're saying offends some of us. You were hired to entertain. You just stopped being entertaining. So go away now."
Would you say
(a) Listen, son, I believe in freedom of speech; so if this guy wants to call me an adulterer or your mother a slut, that's his right! So back off and let him finish whatever he wants to say.
or
(b) Yes, let's move on, thanks for your services, Don, let's go to the other room and I'll pay you what I owe you, but I think it's time to start the dancing now. What? No, I won't be tipping you. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:21 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: Once again - if the government pulled the plug on Imus, that's a freedom of speech issue.
Sigh. Evidently, noone knows how to click a hot link anymore. So, here's some excerpts from the Site which I provided above:
"If people fear losing their jobs or having their lives ruined for uttering offensive remarks, they become afraid to speak. Without a public outlet for their thoughts—hateful or otherwise, they fester in secret. This is where most violent acts are born. And that is why the First Amendment in its protection of speech is so important. It acts as a steam valve to let those who hate release their pent-up anger.
No doubt there will be those who counter that the First Amendment, like all other liberties protected in the Constitution, prohibits only the government from abridging free speech. But its ideals transcend law and government. James Madison, who authored the First Amendment, noted that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect the minority against the majority. And as Madison knew very well, the minority is often made up of extremists who spew forth with offensive speech.
The First Amendment also protects against the mob mentality. In fact, the backlash against Don Imus represents our politically correct society’s constant attempts to control the minds of those who persist in thinking that we are a free people. Censoring unpopular speech sends the message that if we don’t toe the line, our lives can, and will, be ruined. As a consequence, it not only destroys human beings, it tells us that we can’t think for ourselves, we can’t hold certain views and we can’t speak freely.
This overblown debacle clearly illustrates how far we’ve fallen as a free society. America once symbolized the very essence of free speech, where society’s most arduous and insidious ideas could be put to the test in what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coined as the “free marketplace of ideas.” Today, however, America has been captured by the chains of political correctness and polite society, or what we might call fascism with a smile." ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:23 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: "Commonly thought to be politically incorrect" by whom? How do you know the words weren't commonly thought just to be rude and childish?
Can you actually find a real instance of someone calling Imus' remarks "politically incorrect" (not just Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect")?
"However, by allowing the monster of political correctness to trash our First Amendment right to free speech, we slam the door on open debate and dialogue. Ultimately, intimidating people into silence will lead to more grievous problems. Don Imus’ statements were crude and certainly uncalled for, but to totally dismantle his life destroys him as a person. Call for an apology. Correct his misguided views. But don’t suppress his speech. And, above all, don’t annihilate the man." ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:30 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: (Sigh!)
That was a bit of a stretch, don't you think, babs? Though your point is well taken, I can't seriously equate your rediculous fantasy scenario with that of Imus' one little joke. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:35 PM methos "Sigh. Evidently, noone knows how to click a hot link anymore. "
I can click a link. I can read the article that leads me to. Problem is, the argument made in that article is idiotic.
It's not a question of free speech. John Whitehead saying that it is doesn't change that any more than Valor D saying it is does. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:37 PM babthrower Valor D. Cosmos says:That was a bit of a stretch, don't you think, babs?
Well, Valor, sometimes hyperbole is necessary, hence the Sigh!
Whassamattah, can't answer the question? ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:40 PM methos newnickname: ...Can you actually find a real instance of someone calling Imus' remarks "politically incorrect" (not just Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect")?
Valor D: However, by allowing the monster of political correctness to trash our First Amendment right to free speech...
Um... read the part in parentheses Valor D... Your quote is an example of "Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect"" and therefore does not answer newnickname's question. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:41 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by methos: I can click a link. I can read the article that leads me to. Problem is, the argument made in that article is idiotic.
Why do you say that? I found it to be one of the most intelligent articles I've heard or read on the issue, thus far. Most certainly more intelligent than anything we've heard from you, methos. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:43 PM methos Yet you haven't responded to..
"Valor - I would like to have a radio program. Please send the necessary money my way. If you don't, you'll be denying me my freedom of speech, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that."
I'd really like to know why the double standard for the Imus-sponsors situation and the Methos-Valor D situation. Why is one a question of free speech while the other, I'm guessing, is not? Of course, if they're both the same I'll be waiting for my check. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 12:46 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by methos: newnickname: ...Can you actually find a real instance of someone calling Imus' remarks "politically incorrect" (not just Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect")?
Valor D"However, by allowing the monster of political correctness to trash our First Amendment right to free speech...
Um... read the part in parentheses Valor D... Your quote is an example of "Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect"" and therefore does not answer newnickname's question.
You're confused. That was nnn's question, not babs. Just go to Google and type in: "Don Imus politically incorrect" and see the long list of links which come up. It's not exactly rocket-science. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 12:49 PM methos Do you REALLY believe in freedom of speech??? (106 Replies) Idiotic was perhaps overboard, but as for why I am unimpressed by Whitehead's article, see many of the comments on the preceding several pages. Aside from rhetorical flourish, sort of, I don't see where the article adds anything that hasn't already been said. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 12:50 PM aminator2002 We had someone in my company fired for using completely inappropriate language in a professional context. He was fired justly IMO as he was being paid to represent the company and the things he said, one word in particular, were completely counter to the ethics of the company, and therefore the people paying his check. There could also be repercussions for the company because his little outburst could result in lawsuits.
Is that a free speech issue Valor D?
Should people just be allowed to say whatever they want whenever without professional repurcussions? ********************************************* 05-09-07, 12:54 PM methos
quote: It's not exactly rocket-science.
I'm not actually arguing that you can't find any suitable examples, that would be newnickname (regarding confusion... please reread the text you quoted and note that it says newnickname, not babs). All I'm pointing out, is that your response fails to answer the question.
If you would like to provide newnickname with something that fits the request, provide it.
If you think it is unnecessary or obvious, say so or even ignore the request.
But, don't respond with something that was specifically not asked for. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 12:56 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by methos: Yet you haven't responded to..
"Valor - I would like to have a radio program. Please send the necessary money my way. If you don't, you'll be denying me my freedom of speech, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that."
I'd really like to know why the double standard for the Imus-sponsors situation and the Methos-Valor D situation. Why is one a question of free speech while the other, I'm guessing, is not? Of course, if they're both the same I'll be waiting for my check.
If I'm ever in need of a babbling, insulting idiot, I'll know who to call. For the moment, though, I've no need to contract such a person. I didn't bother responding to your comment the first time I read it because I thought it was so plainly absurd that I took it as rhetorical.
However, if I were to hire such a person for such a thing, then fired them for doing precisely what I hired them to do after getting a few complaints, despite the fact that my employee apologized, and despite the fact I made no attempt to work the issue through, then my employee would be within their rights to say I did them wrong. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 12:59 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by methos:
quote: It's not exactly rocket-science.
I'm not actually arguing that you can't find any suitable examples, that would be newnickname (regarding confusion... please reread the text you quoted and note that it says newnickname, not babs). All I'm pointing out, is that your response fails to answer the question.
If you would like to provide newnickname with something that fits the request, provide it.
If you think it is unnecessary or obvious, say so or even ignore the request.
But, don't respond with something that was specifically not asked for.
What in the world are you talking about? ********************************************* 05-09-07, 01:01 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: We had someone in my company fired for using completely inappropriate language in a professional context. He was fired justly IMO as he was being paid to represent the company and the things he said, one word in particular, were completely counter to the ethics of the company, and therefore the people paying his check. There could also be repercussions for the company because his little outburst could result in lawsuits.
Is that a free speech issue Valor D?
Should people just be allowed to say whatever they want whenever without professional repurcussions?
No, of course not. But, as I said to methos: "However, if I were to hire such a person for such a thing, then fired them for doing precisely what I hired them to do after getting a few complaints, despite the fact that my employee apologized, and despite the fact I made no attempt to work the issue through, then my employee would be within their rights to say I did them wrong." ********************************************* 05-09-07, 01:18 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by methos:
quote: It's not exactly rocket-science.
I'm not actually arguing that you can't find any suitable examples, that would be newnickname (regarding confusion... please reread the text you quoted and note that it says newnickname, not babs). All I'm pointing out, is that your response fails to answer the question.
If you would like to provide newnickname with something that fits the request, provide it.
If you think it is unnecessary or obvious, say so or even ignore the request.
But, don't respond with something that was specifically not asked for.
I guess you're right- I must have misread. I've done my best to answer all questions posed specifically to me. If I've missed any, please point them out. Excuse me if it's a bit overwhelming. Sometimes I get the feeling like I'm trying to talk over a hurricane, without yelling. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 01:27 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Valor D. Cosmos says:That was a bit of a stretch, don't you think, babs?
Well, Valor, sometimes hyperbole is necessary, hence the Sigh!
Whassamattah, can't answer the question?
I answered you, babs. Whether you happened to like or accept it is something else, obviously. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 01:34 PM methos Imus was hired precisely to call college athletes nappy-headed hoes?
Imus was hired to perform on a program that would bring in advertising dollars. One aspect of his way of doing this involved treading close to a line. He apparently crossed that line and was no longer able to bring in advertising dollars. Certain aspects of our culture made butting up against that line very profitable for Imus over the years. Certain aspects made it unprofitable to cross the line. Since this was a live program, it was Imus' job to figure out where that line was on a day to day basis. He failed at that very important aspect of his job.
I've said before that I don't really think he should have been fired. I also don't particularly care; there's no connection to free speech.
"I didn't bother responding to your comment the first time I read it because I thought it was so plainly absurd that I took it as rhetorical."
Yes, it is absurd. But so is the idea that this is a free speech issue.05-09-07, 01:36 PM ********************************************* babthrower
quote: You're confused. That was nnn's question, not babs.
Ummm, no, Valor, you're the one who's confused. Meth said it was nnn's question.
There's this lady, Wildflower63, I'd like to introduce you to her. You both are 'equally yoked' when it comes to interpreting sentences in plain English.
And, no, you didn't answer my question at all. My question was,
quote: Would you say
(a) Listen, son, I believe in freedom of speech; so if this guy wants to call me a fat adulterer or your mother a whore-slut, that's his right! So back off and let him finish whatever he wants to say.
or
(b) Yes, let's move on, thanks for your services, Don, let's go to the other room and I'll pay you what I owe you, but I think it's time to start the dancing now. What? No, I won't be tipping you.
That was after Don had exercised his freedom of speech. Ha ha.
Come on. A or B? Free speech or self-respect? The concepts are quite simple. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 01:44 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by methos: Imus was hired precisely to call college athletes nappy-headed hoes?
He was hired as what they call a "shock jock", correct? Just what is the definition of that term, methos?
quote:
Yes, it is absurd. But so is the idea that this is a free speech issue.
Well, obviously a lot of people happen to disagree with you, present company not excluded. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 01:57 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by Valor: [QUOTE]You're confused. That was nnn's question, not babs.
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Ummm, no, Valor, you're the one who's confused. Meth said it was nnn's question.
There's this lady, Wildflower63, I'd like to introduce you to her. You both are 'equally yoked' when it comes to interpreting sentences in plain English.
I already admitted that I misread, babs. Try taking some of your own advice and read my plain English!
quote:
And, no, you didn't answer my question at all. My question was, Would you say
(a) Listen, son, I believe in freedom of speech; so if this guy wants to call me a fat adulterer or your mother a whore-slut, that's his right! So back off and let him finish whatever he wants to say.
or
(b) Yes, let's move on, thanks for your services, Don, let's go to the other room and I'll pay you what I owe you, but I think it's time to start the dancing now. What? No, I won't be tipping you.
quote:
That was after Don had exercised his freedom of speech. Ha ha.
Come on. A or B? Free speech or self-respect? The concepts are quite simple.
It's a very good thing that you decided to edit your post, babs.
For the second time, here is my answer:
"That was a bit of a stretch, don't you think, babs? Though your point is well taken, I can't seriously equate your rediculous fantasy scenario with that of Imus' one little joke."
You cannot force me into answering the way you want me to answer, nor will your juvenile attempts to goat me into an argument be successful. I will not stoop to your level. If you don't like what I have to say, nobody is forcing you to listen. Just as nobody forced you to listen to Don Imus, either. Yet, here you are, still trying to crucify the poor guy and anyone who you perceive as defending him, even after the matter is closed.
Why is that, babs? ********************************************* 05-09-07, 02:07 PM newnickname What I asked for was pretty clear:
'Can you actually find a real instance of someone calling Imus' remarks "politically incorrect" (not just Imus supporters imagining someone thinking them "politically incorrect")?'
As pointed out, your response was precisely an Imus supporter imagining someone thinking Imus' remarks "politically incorrect".
I googled 'Don Imus Politically Incorrect' as you suggested, and got more of the same. Oh, some hits had instances of Imus being described in general terms as being a "politically incorrect commentator" or having a general history of "politically incorrect comments" - but he wasn't fired for that.
An example (hit #15):
'Truth be told, Imus was just one of many talk-radio hosts who push the envelope with racialized, politically incorrect bluster. Sometimes it seems as if talk radio is the last bastion of cranky, narrow-minded white men. Whether it's wrapped in the cloak of right-wing indignation or passionate sports talk, most local radio markets feature one or two outrageous personas that specialize in culturally insensitive shtick. And, to be fair, many black radio programs feature their own brand of racially polarizing chatter. Racist impudence flows from all directions. One wonders if they're all operating with a bit more caution in this post-Imus era.
Beyond the racism and sexism, for me the truly disturbing thing about the Imus affair is that, after numerous national conversations about Rodney King, O. J. Simpson, gangsta rap, Michael Richards, Barack Obama, and any number of Chris Rock comedy bits, we're still stuck in the same gear when it comes to addressing race relations. A race bomb goes off, and we're all appropriately shocked. But after the smoke clears, we're still very much a divided nation. Just check the blogs and message boards after the latest racial incident. Black commentators breathlessly declare: "See, I told you so! Racism is alive and well." Followed by the typical white rejoinder: "How come blacks can use certain words but a white person can't? There's a double standard!"
And so goes our disconnect. Nearly four decades after the civil rights movement, one would think we'd be better equipped to communicate frankly about these issues. We're not.'www.christianitytoday.com
OK, I've looked at three pages of Google links, and I still haven't seen an example of anyone actually saying that Imus' remarks were "politically incorrect" - just people using the phrase as a useful shorthand for describing his general style, or Imus supporters putting the phrase in the mouths of others.
Imus was not fired for being "politically incorrect", or by a mythical "political correctness" conspiracy. "Political correctness" is a straw-man (er... straw-person) used by bullying oafs who get told off for being rude. They like to see themselves as crusaders against censorship, actually they're just silly little boys who want to say bad words. ********************************************* 05-09-07, 02:18 PM Valor D Well nnn, your logic obviously escapes me.
I don't know what you hoped to prove with any of that, honestly. As if whether or not I could find a direct quote saying "Imus was fired for being politically incorrect" would change something? That doesn't mean it's not true. How many references did Google show you of people calling him politically incorrect? One should be able to hope that any intelligent person could make the connection on their own. *********************************************
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2693 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-07-02
We hope that ideas will be expressed, exchanged, debated and discussed in depth; diversity of opinion is a good thing and we encourage it. However, disagreements must remain courteous. Personal attacks, 'Flame Wars', and/or name-calling have no place here and are not acceptable as a means of expression.
I also want to remind people that no goating is allowed on the boards. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 03:15 PM frankvan
A consequence of the nanny state, kid. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 06:05 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
I also want to remind people that no goating is allowed on the boards.
hippolips ************************************************** 05-09-07, 06:21 PM newnickname Maybe "goating" is like "horsing around" but not so serious.
Valor D., the point is that Imus committed a specific offence - being pointlessly rude about that basketball team - which upset people enough to scare the sponsors, and so he got fired. Maybe that's tough on him, but he has no legal or moral recourse there. People can get fired from all kinds of jobs for being rude, or for scaring away the money.
Imus was not a victim of what right-wingers like to call 'the political correctness brigade'. In fact, there's no such thing. He was not fired for being "politically incorrect" - he had been "politically incorrect" for years. They knew he was "politically incorrect" when they hired him. The other "politically incorrect" buffoons are still spouting away. Imus was fired for a joke that misfired badly. That happens. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 06:24 PM frankvan
quote: You cannot force me into answering the way you want me to answer, nor will your juvenile attempts to goat me into an argument be successful. VD
Roll Eyes ************************************************** 05-09-07, 06:32 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by hippolips: [QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
I also want to remind people that no goating is allowed on the boards.
hippo, I use the word "goating" as well. Although it's probably improper English being that I couldn't find it in my Dictionary. "Goat", however, I did find (besides the animal, that is). As in "to get someone's goat, to lead on, provoke into anger, or irritate". Basically, it means 'picking a fight'. "Goating" is just an extension of the word, whether or not it's the Queen's English.
"Goading" does not quite fit that definition. The literal definition of goading involves a caddle prod. Smile ************************************************** 05-09-07, 06:47 PM DorianGreyed ""Goading" does not quite fit that definition. The literal definition of goading involves a caddle prod." - ValorD
Below from Merriam-Webster (Bold mine -DG)
goad 2 entries found for goad. To select an entry, click on it.
Main Entry: 2goad Function: transitive verb 1 : to incite or rouse as if with a goad 2 : to drive (as cattle) with a goad ________ I am unaware that the word goat is a verb, even if you want it to be. ************************************************** 05-09-07, 06:52 PM Valor D 'Desire is irrelevant', DG. lol
My reference is Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, circa 1988.
Also listed under "Goat" is "scape-goating". ************************************************** 05-09-07, 07:07 PM frankvan Aha! You have me convinced, finally. Babs was trying to "goat" you, to "get your goat" and to make you a "scape-goat".It becomes so much clearer now that you've explained how you were right all along, as usual. Roll Eyes ************************************************** 05-09-07, 07:26 PM Valor D
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Aha! You have me convinced, finally. Babs was trying to "goat" you, to "get your goat" and to make you a "scape-goat".It becomes so much clearer now that you've explained how you were right all along, as usual. Roll Eyes
Thank-you for demonstrating the very definition of "goating", frank. In your own passive-aggressive, sarcastic, cynical sort of way, as usual. Wink ************************************************** 05-09-07, 07:36 PM babthrower Gee, I'm such a baaaad, baaaaad person! I tried to nanny-goat poor defenseless Valor (ironically named, I must say!) into supporting his claim that to stop paying someone for saying things you don't like them to say about innocent people is an infringement of freedom of speech as defined in the American constitution. You have to go on paying them for saying false things about innocent people.
So all I can say by way of abject apology is:
quote: Would you say
(a) Listen, son, I believe in freedom of speech; so if this guy wants to call me a fat adulterer or your mother a whore-slut, that's his right! So back off and let him finish whatever he wants to say;
or
(b) Yes, let's move on, thanks for your services, Don, let's go to the other room and I'll pay you what I owe you, but I think it's time to start the dancing now. What? No, I won't be tipping you.
Mind you, Valor, I don't blame you in a way for not daring to answer. Because the question is a direct parallel to what Don Imus did, and you would have to reveal yourself as having been, in this debate, either
-- wrong; it's not a free-speech issue;
or
-- gutless; you would let some ******* insult you and your family in your own home and pay him for it, and not even have the guts Big Grin to refuse him his tip, besides! Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17223 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
There have been several posts that have come close to personal insults in this thread; can we please keep to the subject, or this thread will be closed. Thank you.
Posts: 3623 | Location: Ridgewood, N.J. USA | Registered: 05-30-03
Originally posted by Sailracer: There have been several posts that have come close to personal insults in this thread; can we please keep to the subject, or this thread will be closed. Thank you.
"Close to"?? Pfft. What a joke!
Obviously, the site rules have gone down the toilet, along with the people who supposedly enforce them.
It seems I have little choice but to be the better person here and simply ignore this old Goat and her "goating" remarks.
AnswerPool.com 
