posted
Ok, if you think I believe that many African-Americans (not just men) enjoy hip hop don't mind when they use that word among themselves to themselves, but do mind when outsiders do...
Yeah, Ok, it's not often I agree with Samprimary this much, but great job dressing people down for what your strawmen said. I specifically pointed out that some African-Americans *do* regard the word differently depending on who used it. I wasn't alone, either, and furthermore this is pretty entry-level stuff when it comes to this sort of discussion. I'm not sure why on Earth anyone would think they had a lock on that thinking.
You're not a visionary, Steven. You're just another guy gabbing about current events, not unlike the rest of us. It's baffling that you think you've got the status or wisdom to put on these sorts of airs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
He used gay slurs: "(I’d) put my foot up your f---king a$$, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much" and "I’m gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna f---k...you...up."
There will be outrage from the media about his use of gay slurs, right? Capitol One will fire him as their ad man, surely. After all, if Paula Deen's words were worth a boycott, then surely Baldwin's are too, right?
I guess we'll see. But since Baldwin has behaved this way before with little-to-no consequence, I doubt it.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Twitter - Helping people skip the cooldown time between being really pissed off and finding the person you're pissed off at since 2006.
IP: Logged |
posted
It's more than just words, Dustin, in Deen's case. Toxic though Baldwin's remarks were, it would appear that's all they were. Nice attempt at some conservative outrage, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it more than just words? How so? Deen's testimony was that she *said* racist things. While it's true that she is being accused of creating a hostile work environment, that is still in court and undecided (at least legally).
Since I don't know Deen or Baldwin personally, I have no way of knowing their true intentions or motivations. I can only go by their words.
posted
It wasn't an attempt at deflection, it was an illustration of your ignorance of the details of this little controversy. Deen is not only in hot water because she once used a racial slur. Look it up. Basic level stuff on this matter that you should've known already if you were gonna claim to venture an informed opinion, but mistakes happen. At this point, though, if you're gonna persist in claiming that this is all it's about, you'll be marking yourself unworthy of being taken seriously.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does bring up an interesting question though, at least to me. Would she have been fired if the only charge was creating a hostile work environment? If everything else was true but no mention is ever made of any kind of racial slur, would she still have her job?
My guess is yes. I'm no expert on the gourmet restaurant business but I get the impression from various shows that many of the top chefs are very difficult and demanding people to work for. So this would be no big deal in the gourmet world until the racial slurs come out.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's probably some truth to that-businesses and owners can navigate through the rocky waters of less incendiary hostile workplace situations, but even without the racial overtones involved there's apparently a good stiff dose of misogyny and some pretty substantial sexual harassment, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: There will be outrage from the media about his use of gay slurs, right? Capitol One will fire him as their ad man, surely. After all, if Paula Deen's words were worth a boycott, then surely Baldwin's are too, right?
Baldwin would already have been dropped by Capitol One and numerous other sponsorships and created a rampage of criticism that would have dwarfed the Dean controversy if, in his twitter meltdown, he had called someone a nigger or referred to black people as niggers. Like, absolutely no question. Since you seem to be completely failing to account for this in your little question here, I don't know what you think this comparison demonstrates, or what the event is going to prove if Baldwin doesn't get shitcanned from Capitol One. Do you need to be individually waking up to the already well-known reality that anti-homophobia lags way behind anti-racism in this country, and we give way more of an ignorant pass to hurtful homophobic shit than we would to hurtful racist shit? Did you completely ignore the non-equivalence in this country between racism and homophobia in order to presume that the critical variable in this comparison is that Baldwin is a protected class of liberals that would get away with what Dean did, and Dean didn't because she's seen more as a conservative person?
(these are all rhetorical questions ofc, i assume this already)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It wasn't an attempt at deflection, it was an illustration of your ignorance of the details of this little controversy. Deen is not only in hot water because she once used a racial slur. Look it up. Basic level stuff on this matter that you should've known already if you were gonna claim to venture an informed opinion, but mistakes happen. At this point, though, if you're gonna persist in claiming that this is all it's about, you'll be marking yourself unworthy of being taken seriously.
Rakeesh, saying "You're wrong because you're uninformed" is a pretty clear deflection.
I've read all 149 pages of Paula Deen's deposition. Have you? Because if you haven't, then you are in no position to call me uninformed.
There are two things that Paula Deen is being lambasted for, and both are things she said. One is her admitted use of the n-word a long time ago. The second is her remarks about her brother's wedding and how she wanted a bunch of "n-words wearing bow ties." She admits the gist of that story, but denies using the n-word at the time.
Every single other allegation in the deposition is directed toward her brother, who was in charge of the restaurant. Those allegations - that black employees had to use a separate restroom, that her brother forced employees to hear sexual jokes and look at porn, and that management ignored complaints - are still just allegations. They might be true, but they also might not.
So please, tell me what - other than words - Paula Deen is losing sponsorships over. And please, don't make yourself look silly by declaring someone uninformed for no reason.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Paula Deen is losing her sponsorships because of a public backlash against the story. The public are the ones who ultimately decide whether paying someone to be a sponsor is worth it. Whether you consider it fair or not, that's how business works.
IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. And that's probably why Baldwin will not get fired from his various jobs. Mainly for the reasons Samp already mentioned but also, his words do not seem as harsh to me. I'm not gay so can't really speak on how offensive or not something is but queen and bitch seem a lot less offensive than the n-word or fa... word. Admittedly, I could be wrong about that.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Paula Deen is losing her sponsorships because of a public backlash against the story. The public are the ones who ultimately decide whether paying someone to be a sponsor is worth it. Whether you consider it fair or not, that's how business works.
I completely agree with that. It's the public perception - fed by the media - that really ended up hurting Paula Deen.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Indeed. And that's probably why Baldwin will not get fired from his various jobs. Mainly for the reasons Samp already mentioned but also, his words do not seem as harsh to me. I'm not gay so can't really speak on how offensive or not something is but queen and bitch seem a lot less offensive than the n-word or fa... word. Admittedly, I could be wrong about that.
The issue is less in any objective difference in how harmful that language is to the marginalized community it targets, it's that too much of america still gives homophobic language a pass even when that homophobic language should be equally criticized.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ]The issue is less in any objective difference in how harmful that language is to the marginalized community it targets, it's that too much of america still gives homophobic language a pass even when that homophobic language should be equally criticized.
I agree, which is why I said mostly for your reasons. But there are also varying degrees of offensiveness within each respective category. If Baldwin had used the F...t word, would he still get a pass? Maybe but I bet the criticism would be much higher. If Paula Deen had stated that she never had and never would use the n. word but admitted to using negro or colored in the past, would she still be fired?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think far worse than her use of the word "nigger" was her attempt to describe the halcyon experience of being waited on by abnormally polite and servile black men who dressed to a preferred standard, and why she wanted to recreate that experience for other people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a great view on the topic An Afro-American cook reminds us that most of the food Ms. Dean is famous far came out of slave kitchens. The African influence in BBQ, Grits, Hoecakes, etc is ignored in favor of Southern Cooking is the Great Southern White Tradition. That is a greater crime.
At the Republican Convention a year ago some fools made a stink when they argued something like, "We shouldn't apologize for slavery. We gave those slaves food and shelter." A lot of distance and disgust was directed at those fools. What was never said was, "No--the slaves built the shelters and grew, cooked, and served the food. Who was it just given to?"
Blatant bigotry is no longer the main evil being done. Its the uncaring lie that, "those lazy Africans didn't do anything worth remembering" that needs to be fought.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: There are plenty of young African-American males who would be HIGHLY offended if they heard a white person use the n-word. Plenty of those same young men enjoy hip-hop a great deal.
I'm starting to wonder if ANY of you actually know any young black men. Seriously, I'm wondering. The fact that I'm the first person to point out that plenty of young black men love hip-hop and HATE it when white people use the word is...fairly telling, maybe.
And I know a lot of women who call themselves fat all the time but would be deeply offended if someone else calls them or one of their friends fat.
This isn't a double standard. It's manners. You are allowed to say critical things about your self that others are not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of women too. I've never seen any of them greet each other with a friendly "What up, fatso?". There's no double standard around "fatso" because it's (for the most part) universally derogative.
If it was offensive to some, but was also used as a slang proxy for "one of us" then that would be, by definition, a double standard.
That said, a group of women using "what up fatty?" as a greeting sounds like the making of a pretty funny SNL bit.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It wasn't an attempt at deflection, it was an illustration of your ignorance of the details of this little controversy. Deen is not only in hot water because she once used a racial slur. Look it up. Basic level stuff on this matter that you should've known already if you were gonna claim to venture an informed opinion, but mistakes happen. At this point, though, if you're gonna persist in claiming that this is all it's about, you'll be marking yourself unworthy of being taken seriously.
Rakeesh, saying "You're wrong because you're uninformed" is a pretty clear deflection.
I've read all 149 pages of Paula Deen's deposition. Have you? Because if you haven't, then you are in no position to call me uninformed.
There are two things that Paula Deen is being lambasted for, and both are things she said. One is her admitted use of the n-word a long time ago. The second is her remarks about her brother's wedding and how she wanted a bunch of "n-words wearing bow ties." She admits the gist of that story, but denies using the n-word at the time.
Every single other allegation in the deposition is directed toward her brother, who was in charge of the restaurant. Those allegations - that black employees had to use a separate restroom, that her brother forced employees to hear sexual jokes and look at porn, and that management ignored complaints - are still just allegations. They might be true, but they also might not.
So please, tell me what - other than words - Paula Deen is losing sponsorships over. And please, don't make yourself look silly by declaring someone uninformed for no reason.
Yes, I have read it. And if people were only focusing on the bare bones of what Deen has admitted herself at this point, you might have a leg to stand on.
But people aren't just saying, "She used a racial slur years ago. Fire her!" From a deeply conservative outlook such as yours that may be how it feels when people are frustrated with the majority, but the full situation is more complicated. Much of it ties into her follow up to the news. Her semi head nod towards 'that was wrong and I'm sorry', her bizarre explanation for what goes on with her family and their businesses, and-this much is true at least-her pretty weak explanation for waxing rhapsodic about the cultural niftiness of slavery.
These are the things, taken together, which when from a publicity standpoint put a strong whiff of doubt and wariness in the minds of people who aren't just inclined to shrug off racism as 'we're all color blind now' absurdity. And because it's a publicity question, and that makes it an economic question, she is losing some deals. Capitalism at work. Shouldn't you be happy?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: There are plenty of young African-American males who would be HIGHLY offended if they heard a white person use the n-word. Plenty of those same young men enjoy hip-hop a great deal.
I'm starting to wonder if ANY of you actually know any young black men. Seriously, I'm wondering. The fact that I'm the first person to point out that plenty of young black men love hip-hop and HATE it when white people use the word is...fairly telling, maybe.
And I know a lot of women who call themselves fat all the time but would be deeply offended if someone else calls them or one of their friends fat.
This isn't a double standard. It's manners. You are allowed to say critical things about your self that others are not.
But would those women only get offended when skinny/fit people call them fat but it's okay for other fat people to call them fat? That would be a more exact comparison, since African-Americans wouldn't get offended if a fellow African-American called them that but would if a Caucasian did.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If fat people had any sense of commonality, sure. But fat people loathe and despise other fat people almost as much as thin people do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some would. I've witnessed it with my own eyes-one African American chastising another for throwing that word around.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Yeah, there are plenty of black people who don't agree with the usage of the word by anyone. Bill Cosby is one who immediately springs to mind, but almost any black contributer on the cable news networks is going to say the same thing. I've met people in day to day life with the same opinion. It's really not a vanishing rarity, though I definitely think it's more common the older the person in question is. They can better remember when the word was not only still a weapon, but a weapon with power.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, Gaal-did you mean to say that African Americans, as a group, don't tend to mind when the word is said by others of that group, but do mind if it's said by those who aren't? Or did you mean to say some or particular subsets?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Some would. I've witnessed it with my own eyes-one African American chastising another for throwing that word around.
I'm reminded of the poem called Niggaz by slam poet Julian Curry. It's encouraging to see a black person denounce the use of that word, especially from a platform that's much more likely to reach younger generations. The word's casual use might not be so prevalent if everyone, regardless of color, was more mindful of its historic significance.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing: I suspect such denouncements are quite a bit less uncommon than appears to be believed here. There are, well, *quite a lot* of African Americans who are disgusted by the way that word, as well as embracing some of the scuzzier sides of what is often referred to as a hip hop culture.
Strangely, though, they don't get as much attention.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If fat people had any sense of commonality, sure. But fat people loathe and despise other fat people almost as much as thin people do.
We should sign you up for one of those social justice sites that talks about thin privilege and 'thinsplaining' and calls people out on their sizeist language and body policing (trigger warning: fatphobia!!)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Some would. I've witnessed it with my own eyes-one African American chastising another for throwing that word around.
posted
I can't tell if you're just making a jokey movie reference or if that's a remark on how uncommon it is and unlikely. But no, in person, to another person who was physically in front of me in his person.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really question how many people who think the "n word" is ubiquitously used by black people know very many black people. I didn't really know many black people until college, when I ended up living in a neighborhood where me and my roommate were the only not black people, and when I got to know some of my neighbors, hang out with them at parties, etc. I was surprised at how rarely they used the word. Most of them didn't at all.
It seems it's mostly limited to the kind of ignorant young men who also like calling everything "gay" or "retarded." Your average middle class, educated black man or woman probably says it just as rarely as your average, middle class, educated white man or woman.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much spot on to my experience as well, Dogbreath. Black people aren't all (or even mostly) deeply rooted in the kind of hip hop culture that draws attention and criticism from the wider culture, in my experience.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: There will be outrage from the media about his use of gay slurs, right? Capitol One will fire him as their ad man, surely. After all, if Paula Deen's words were worth a boycott, then surely Baldwin's are too, right?
Baldwin would already have been dropped by Capitol One and numerous other sponsorships and created a rampage of criticism that would have dwarfed the Dean controversy if, in his twitter meltdown, he had called someone a nigger or referred to black people as niggers. Like, absolutely no question. Since you seem to be completely failing to account for this in your little question here, I don't know what you think this comparison demonstrates, or what the event is going to prove if Baldwin doesn't get shitcanned from Capitol One. Do you need to be individually waking up to the already well-known reality that anti-homophobia lags way behind anti-racism in this country, and we give way more of an ignorant pass to hurtful homophobic shit than we would to hurtful racist shit? Did you completely ignore the non-equivalence in this country between racism and homophobia in order to presume that the critical variable in this comparison is that Baldwin is a protected class of liberals that would get away with what Dean did, and Dean didn't because she's seen more as a conservative person?
(these are all rhetorical questions ofc, i assume this already)
I would hope this is true, but there is a history of people, both left and right leaning, that have said numerous racist things in the past and nobody bats an eye.
Robert Byrd was a senator for crying out loud and he still used the N-word on a regular basis, and almost nobody brought it up.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Byrd wasn't a national brand. He only had to keep (the majority of) the (voting) people of North Virginia happy. North Virginia, BTW, was the the most racist vote in 2008, with 20% of whites reporting that race was a factor in their vote for Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primaries. West Virginia voters are also over 95% white. Using the N-word seems like a pretty minor liability there.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So since it is a smaller portion of the populace it makes it ok? The man was an elected official, not a celebrity. If the media had their priorities straight in this country they would cover things that elected officials do more than people who are only popular because they got lucky in Hollywood.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: So since it is a smaller portion of the populace it makes it ok? The man was an elected official, not a celebrity. If the media had their priorities straight in this country they would cover things that elected officials do more than people who are only popular because they got lucky in Hollywood.
Your complaint was that "almost nobody brought it up." That is virtually guaranteed by "smaller audience", which was my whole point.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Generally the media cares about what its viewers suggest they want cared about.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.
You can disagree all you like, but the media runs on advertising, and advertising runs on coaxing viewers to watch, and well you get the point. People claim to want something different than they actually pay for. Your disagreement notwithstanding that's how the system, you know, operates. It's bizarre how quickly people are willing to throw away ideas such as supply and demand when it suits an ideology.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has nothing to do with ideology, Rakeesh. It has to do with the fact that I have a degree in journalism and worked as a reporter, a radio DJ, and for a television station. In other words: I speak from personal experience. I had freedom to choose what to write, and chose stories based on what interested me, not on a poll of reader opinions. It's true that the media is expected by consumers to cover certain types of story. And it's true that certain media outlets are more liberal while others are more conservative, which is reflected in their audience.
But the media isn't a system of commerce based on supply and demand. Very few advertisers care about the content of the media. They want eyeballs. They might aim for a specific demographic that is served by a certain media entity, but on the whole they aren't often swayed by public opinion. Look how many advertisers left Rush Limbaugh last year, then quietly came back when the furor died down. They want sales, not ideology.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the media isn't a system of commerce based on supply and demand. Very few advertisers care about the content of the media. They want eyeballs. They might aim for a specific demographic that is served by a certain media entity, but on the whole they aren't often swayed by public opinion. Look how many advertisers left Rush Limbaugh last year, then quietly came back when the furor died down. They want sales, not ideology.
I'm not sure 1) how you could have read my post and not seen 'advertising' as one of the very first words and 2) how you think what you've said disagrees with my post or proves your point.
I didn't say every single journalist, in all of their stories, caters to opinion polls. That doesn't need to be true for my point to stand and frankly if that's the standard you're insisting on, it's absurd. Do you imagine that if your tastes diverged continually from those of the public in your work, that you would've been kept on? Of course not. At those jobs, was nine of your past work examined to see what sorts of work you did and could be expected to do if given some free reign (and by the way, I would be surprised if your only guideline was 'if it interests me'), etc?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
