Imus Calls Rutgers Women's Basketball Team "Nappy Headed Hos" - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-13-2007, 10:38 AM   #391
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
there are pieces of shit in all walks of life... but the insinuation that keeps going on that everyone who has listened to imus' show is some racist piece of crap is getting very tiresome.


i'm not sure what to think about this any more.

people say mean things all the time. sometimes they get caught, sometimes they get a pass, sometimes some groups are a little more protected than others.

i recently came across this in the Advocate:

[q]"Blah blah blah faggot"

By Dave White

From The Advocate April 24, 2007

Hey, queers, guess what? People still hate you. I know—it’s shocking, isn’t it? You may have been tricked for a few minutes into thinking that everything was going to be all right with society, that eventually you’d be able to just live your life without having to get bogged down with questions like, “Just what does the cast of Grey’s Anatomy really feel about my moral fitness as an adoptive parent?” But for now, your very existence is still a topic of great interest among many very important scholars and thinkers—people like Marky Mark, or that guy who played the rappin’ pimp in Hustle & Flow, or a former basketball player, or a whiny former gay-for-pay porn star. But without a scorecard it can be hard to know which mouthy headline-lassoers on the culture landscape are easily ignored and which ones deserve to have bags of dog poop set on fire on their front porches. I’m here to help.

Gen. Peter Pace:
Aging cracker who thinks you and me and everyone we know are immoral. Wars based on lies that slaughter thousands of people, however, are awesome. OK, he didn’t exactly say “awesome.” I’m paraphrasing.

Mark Wahlberg:
The former pinup for gay underwear fetishists and sampler of Loleatta Holloway disco records said that he was glad to have been passed over for Brokeback Mountain. See, Marky read the script, and the fictional characters’ tent-sex made him “a little creeped out.” Because the John Holmes–like character he played in Boogie Nights, by virtue of banging only chicks, wasn’t creepy at all.

Trinidad and Tobago:
Seemingly the entire population believes that allowing Elton John to perform there will cause gayness to spontaneously combust in unsuspecting listeners. Curse you, Lion King soundtrack!

Cpl. Matt Sanchez:
The U.S. Marine Corps reservist who once performed as “Rod Majors” in gay porn would like you to know that he thinks the gay “lifestyle” is wrong. He would also like liberals to stop picking on him after he bashes them on his blog. Him make Bizarro Sense!

Ann Coulter:
An opportunist. She needs regular media attention, so she pops up every so often when things get too quiet and participates in a wacky controversy. This time around she saw the primo name recognition Isaiah Washington got just for saying “faggot,” which, as everyone knows, involves no heavy lifting whatsoever and just trips off the tongue.

Terrence Howard:
"Do I agree with homosexuality?” began the Oscar nominee in a recent interview. “No, I’m a Bible-based young man.” The actor has fewer public opinions about the Bible’s admonition for masters to treat their slaves well and is a touch ambivalent about the whole shellfish thing.

Tim Hardaway:
Former NBA-er who thinks homosexuality shouldn’t be in the United States or the world. Either country, you know? Currently keeping himself busy working on a very big rocket to put all of us on. Learning science first, of course. Then comes the rocket.[/q]


now i am not going to say that any one comment is better/worse than the other. i am not going to say that any form of discrimination is better than the other. what i am going to say is that i don't understand why this comment, by this person, has exploded into such a circus.

i've listened to Imus in the past. i've found his comments about Arabs far, far more offensive than anything he said about the Rutgers women. but i kept listening for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the man is a brilliant interviewer and has terrific guests on his show. i am not, for a second, going to apologize for that or be implicated in creating a more discriminatory climate because i've tuned into his show every once in a while, in the same way that i will not be called homophobic because i've bought Eminem albums.

this is a free speech issue, and an economic issue. Imus was fired not for his comments, but because he has now become an economic liability for MSNBC and CBS (due to his comments). and all that is fine. the consumers spoke with their dollars, and Imus is gone. what i do fear is a toning down of the marketplace of what is available for the consumer. say what you will about the Imus's of the world, the Limbaugh's of the world, the Tim Hardaway's of the world; at the very least, i'd rather hear what they have to say than to muzzle them lest someone's feelings get hurt. i'd rather live in a vibrant, maddening, dynamic culture that dares to offend -- and suffer the consequence -- than one that's bland and monochromatic.

the world is a more interesting place with "South Park" than without; the world is a more interesting place with "Dave Chappelle" than without. one of the things that i've always liked about the US -- in comparison to the time i've spent in Europe -- is that the culture airs it's dirty laundry. we see what goes on between the sheets. we fight, we argue, we offend, we fight back. and in the end, it's a healthier culture for it. Imus's punishment -- in some senses fair and deserved because he was punished, ultimately, by the culture itself -- does, i think, make people a bit more nervous about what they say, and what they do.

what was it Ari Fleischer said about Bill Maher after 9-11?

[q]But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is. [/q]

in any event, i am very curious to know what Bill Maher has to say about it tonight.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-13-2007, 10:54 AM   #392
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I agree that African Americans degrade each other and themselves with some of that rap music- but that sells and makes money, just like Imus. If people didn't buy it/download it well it wouldn't thrive, right?
True, and the FCC does not regulate content of CDs, books, magazines, etc. like they do the public airwaves. Howard Stern and Opie/Anthony are two other examples that were too risque for public airwaves and ended up on satellite radio, which is not regulated. Don Imus eventually could end up there as well. One thing I don't get is why Imus' racial/sexual slur is considered less "indecent" by the FCC than what Howard Stern used to say (and get fined for). Perhaps the FCC should considering adding racial and sexual slurs to their list of indecent words for public broadcast.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:00 AM   #393
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,333
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


True, and the FCC does not regulate content of CDs, books, magazines, etc. like they do the public airwaves. Howard Stern and Opie/Anthony are two other examples that were too risque for public airwaves and ended up on satellite radio, which is not regulated.
opie and anthony aren't just on satellite radio... they are national sydicated across the nation on FM radio.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:01 AM   #394
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar

Perhaps the FCC should considering adding racial and sexual slurs to their list of indecent words for public broadcast.
They'd get rich quick, especially if sexists or sexual slurs were included...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:08 AM   #395
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar

Perhaps the FCC should considering adding racial and sexual slurs to their list of indecent words for public broadcast.


so where do we start drawing up a list?

this is why i'm actually sort of opposed to hate crimes legislation. who gets to be protected? what constitutes a slur?

with foul language, we all know what the words are: shit, fuck, etc.

but what is a slur? what is demeaning language?

and i'd have to say i'm totally opposed to any sort of formal regulation. in some ways, the hate speech heard on Christian radio towards homosexuals is far more offensive than anything Imus has ever said, but you know what, i support their right to say it without facing any sort of formal crackdown. and where does someone's right not to be offended -- which is essentially what's being advocated -- trample on someone's right to religious expression?

the "God Hates Fags" crowd make me physically ill (when they're not cracking my shit up), but i think they should be able to say whatever they want on a radio show within certain, broadly defined decency standards (no shit, fuck, etc.)

with free speech, you take the good with the bad.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:16 AM   #396
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

so where do we start drawing up a list?

this is why i'm actually sort of opposed to hate crimes legislation. who gets to be protected? what constitutes a slur?

with foul language, we all know what the words are: shit, fuck, etc.

but what is a slur? what is demeaning language?
It probably won't happen overnight, but there are a few foul racial terms that we all know about also (which I won't repeat here). Perhaps your definition of "foul language" above needs to expand to include these. That would be a good start. And has been stated many times, free speech is not applicable. Free speech exists ONLY if it is 100% free, and Howard Stern proves that there is no free speech on radio.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:19 AM   #397
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i am not, for a second, going to apologize for that or be implicated in creating a more discriminatory climate because i've tuned into his show every once in a while, in the same way that i will not be called homophobic because i've bought Eminem albums.

But participation on any level is some sort of approval of the behavior, isn't it? When Don Imus, or Eminem, or any other person who thinks that kind of language is appropriate are called on the carpet for it, they can point to their listeners and say "Look how many other people agree with what I say. They wouldn't listen/buy if they disagreed." You are supporting them by listening; you're giving them an audience.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:28 AM   #398
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

now i am not going to say that any one comment is better/worse than the other. i am not going to say that any form of discrimination is better than the other. what i am going to say is that i don't understand why this comment, by this person, has exploded into such a circus.


in any event, i am very curious to know what Bill Maher has to say about it tonight.
You're right--from what I've read he's said many things as or more offensive than this. Had Arab-Americans, or any other group he's insulted, gone up in arms about his comments before now he may have been booted then. But they didn't. He's been treading a thin line for a long time and this was the last straw. For now, anyway. As others have pointed out, he'll be back.

And I'm also curious about what Maher will say tonight because he's a pretty clear and independent thinker. I'm kind of all over the place with this issue today. I'm glad he got booted because I personally can't stand the sound of the man's voice and I'm sick of shock jocks and everything they stand for but but the bigger issues I'm not so clear on today.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:28 AM   #399
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


But participation on any level is some sort of approval of the behavior, isn't it? When Don Imus, or Eminem, or any other person who thinks that kind of language is appropriate are called on the carpet for it, they can point to their listeners and say "Look how many other people agree with what I say. They wouldn't listen/buy if they disagreed." You are supporting them by listening; you're giving them an audience.


i see what you're saying, and on some level i agree, but i think we're all adults. i don't think people are as simple minded as we seem to be making them out to be. because i watch "South Park," does that mean i support everything that comes out of Cartman's mouth? of course not. he's a character, like in many ways Imus is a character, and as an adult i'm able to disagree with him, to dislike him, to find him offensive (as i've done in the past). i'm able to make distinctions between what i find offensive about Eminem -- the homophobia, the dramatization of killing his wife -- and what i find thrilling about listening to Eminem. and i'd rather have my Eminem homophobic and interesting, than toned down and bland. i really would.

you know what i did last night? i watched the "South Park" movie. it put a lot of this in perspective and remains, in many ways, a colossal artistic and comedic achievement.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-13-2007, 11:56 AM   #400
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

so where do we start drawing up a list?

this is why i'm actually sort of opposed to hate crimes legislation. who gets to be protected? what constitutes a slur?

with foul language, we all know what the words are: shit, fuck, etc.

but what is a slur? what is demeaning language?

and i'd have to say i'm totally opposed to any sort of formal regulation. in some ways, the hate speech heard on Christian radio towards homosexuals is far more offensive than anything Imus has ever said, but you know what, i support their right to say it without facing any sort of formal crackdown. and where does someone's right not to be offended -- which is essentially what's being advocated -- trample on someone's right to religious expression?

the "God Hates Fags" crowd make me physically ill (when they're not cracking my shit up), but i think they should be able to say whatever they want on a radio show within certain, broadly defined decency standards (no shit, fuck, etc.)

with free speech, you take the good with the bad.
Exactly, America is one of the few countries in the world that actually protects free speech (Australia is out immediately on the basis of the Howard governments censorship and sedition laws as is any country with hate speech laws or government censorship - incidently the FCC does get argued against on that basis).

The problem with all these sorts of laws is the double standard that gets applied one way or another depending on the target; sensitivities give disproportionate treatment to those that say bad things about blacks or jews than about say the Irish; if it's all free and society deals with these comments without government interference (as has been demonstrated very effectively with Imus through the consumer, media and sponser reaction) then society is both more free and more open to the exchange of ideas; and many will be rejected because of their content.

This case is a much better demonstration of this than just having to defend the free speech rights of racists and terrorists. Anti-freedom state censorship partisans should take note.

Hate speech laws are vehicles for a political agenda; mostly a leftist agenda just as "family friendly" censorship laws are one for social conservatives - in both cases they rob citizens of their liberties and must be opposed. And just because I support liberties both for myself and for those who I disagree with does not mean that I support the agenda of those I disagree with; it's an interesting note that some "liberals" can't take a nuanced point of view in that instance.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 12:57 PM   #401
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 06:45 AM
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q='nappy-headed+ho%22+t-shirt&hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&um=1&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title

Wow I can't believe this. "Nappy Headed Ho" Merchandise for sale at the Google Store?
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 01:00 PM   #402
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Quote:
Rutgers Team: We Accept Don Imus Apology
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Apr 13 11:57 AM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) - The Rutgers women's basketball team accepted radio host Don Imus' apology Friday for insulting them on the air, saying that he deserves a chance to move on but that they hope the furor his words caused will be a catalyst for change.
"We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team, accept—accept—Mr. Imus' apology, and we are in the process of forgiving," coach C. Vivian Stringer read from a team statement a day after the women met personally with Imus and his wife.

"We still find his statements to be unacceptable, and this is an experience that we will never forget," the statement read

The team had just play in the NCAA national championship game and lost when Imus, on his radio show, called the team members "nappy-headed hos." The statement outraged listeners and set off a national debate about taste and tolerance and led his firing by CBS on Thursday.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture," the team's statement said Friday. "It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

Imus was in the middle of a two-day radio fundraiser for children's charities when he was dropped by CBS. On Friday, his wife took over and also talked about the meeting with the players.

"They gave us the opportunity to listen to what they had to say and why they're hurting and how awful this is," author Deirdre Imus said.

"He feels awful," she said of her husband. "He asked them, 'I want to know the pain I caused, and I want to know how to fix this and change this.'"

Deirdre Imus also said that the Rutgers players have been receiving hate e-mail, and she demanded that it stop. She told listeners "if you must send e-mail, send it to my husband," not the team.

"I have to say that these women are unbelievably courageous and beautiful women," she said.

Asked Friday morning about the hate mail, Rutgers team spokeswoman Stacey Brann said the team had received "two or three e-mails" but had also received "over 600 wonderful e-mails." Stringer declined to discuss it in the news conference later Friday.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 01:36 PM   #403
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Well two or three mails, if that's all it was, is hardly enough to condemn his fans and hardly representative of them as a group. Of course it should be no hate mails.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/13/martin.imus/index.html

Quote:
So many people tried to make this a race issue. But for me, that wasn't the primary point. I never wavered from the attack as one of a sexist. It didn't matter that he was trying to be funny. He insulted a group of women who are already accomplished.
Quote:
America, we have a problem with sexism. Don't try to make this whole matter about the ridiculous rants made by rappers. I deplore what's in a lot of their music and videos, but hip-hop is only 30 years old. So you mean to tell me that sexism in America only started in 1977?

"The culture has changed since Imus started in radio. White straight men don't control everything any more, and they don't get to set the rules for public discourse with the same finality they once did. What we've seen here is, I think, a genuine reflection of the new American mainstream. Most Americans simply find the spectacle of a rich white bigot beating up on young black female achievers after a crushing tournament loss to be gratuitously cruel and unfair. Punishing someone for calling college women "whores" - especially those who have beaten the odds and are role models for other black girls and women - is not a new step in political correctness. It's applying a very old American standard of fairness and decency, which now applies to all Americans, regardless of race or gender. This was the voice of mainstream America speaking. It's not what it once was. I wonder whether many of Imus's buddies realize that yet."~ Andrew Sullivan
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 02:26 PM   #404
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/13/martin.imus/index.html
He's got it right there, I think. Although in this case the two really are inseparable, hence the oversexed/grotesque implication.
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i've listened to Imus in the past. i've found his comments about Arabs far, far more offensive than anything he said about the Rutgers women. but i kept listening for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the man is a brilliant interviewer and has terrific guests on his show. i am not, for a second, going to apologize for that or be implicated in creating a more discriminatory climate because i've tuned into his show every once in a while, in the same way that i will not be called homophobic because i've bought Eminem albums.

this is a free speech issue, and an economic issue. Imus was fired not for his comments, but because he has now become an economic liability for MSNBC and CBS (due to his comments). and all that is fine. the consumers spoke with their dollars, and Imus is gone. what i do fear is a toning down of the marketplace of what is available for the consumer. say what you will about the Imus's of the world, the Limbaugh's of the world, the Tim Hardaway's of the world; at the very least, i'd rather hear what they have to say than to muzzle them lest someone's feelings get hurt. i'd rather live in a vibrant, maddening, dynamic culture that dares to offend -- and suffer the consequence -- than one that's bland and monochromatic.

the world is a more interesting place with "South Park" than without; the world is a more interesting place with "Dave Chappelle" than without.
This whole affair may have the effect of making it harder for "shock jock" broadcasters specifically, but I kind of doubt it's likely to have major repercussions for the likes of South Park or Chappelle. You may not be giving the average person enough credit for their ability to distinguish between sharp-edged performance art and plain old cruelty. This wasn't the first time Imus got in hot water; he just happened to pick a very specific target who many saw it as especially low blow to pick on, plus he did it just before a slow holiday news weekend, which gave the story time to build and fester. I can understand why you think his comments about Arabs were much worse; on the other hand he's taken aim at African-Americans and women before without provoking this level of outcry, so I think the particular subset of an otherwise-'fair'(?)-game category he singled out this time around really made a difference. Also, just as a matter of strategy, I think appearing on Sharpton's show was a bad move--that effectively gave someone else custody of his apology, which he probably should have relinquished only to the people it was directly owed to.

I do though share your apprehensions to a point, because I never thought he would get fired, and I don't gather most of the people seeking that outcome really knew enough about either his show or the medium it's part of to make a distinction between (to borrow your example) him saying it and some sports announcer saying it. I don't think that's relevant to simply protesting his comments, they were protest-worthy regardless; but if you're going to go beyond awareness-raising to demand the strongest punishment available, you really should be very clear on which resonances almost certainly were in there, versus which ones fall into idiot-should've-known-it-would-strike-that-chord-but-didn't territory...which the culture of soundbites and YouTube isn't the most conducive environment for. To a point, I guess, I do feel a bit sorry for him, in that I think he may've wound up being somewhat of a burnt offering to placate tensions which he himself was only a bit player in, in the big picture. Still, to repeatedly pick such cheap targets, and given that this was 'just' a sponsor-driven decision in the end...I just can't see cloaking him in that 'dared-to-push-the-boundaries' defense; the lack-of-perspective argument I can see, but I really loathe seeing people gratuitously anointed with the 'daring' label. Push the boundaries of what, and to what end? You know?

But for the record, I certainly don't think any less of anyone who tuned in to Imus' show and enjoyed much of it despite grimacing at this or some of his other potshots. There's hardly anyone out there who doesn't own some books or CDs or DVDs with some content on them which they find uncomfortably demeaning or cruel in some way; I certainly do.
Quote:
in some ways, the hate speech heard on Christian radio towards homosexuals is far more offensive than anything Imus has ever said, but you know what, i support their right to say it without facing any sort of formal crackdown. and where does someone's right not to be offended -- which is essentially what's being advocated -- trample on someone's right to religious expression?
Can you give some examples? I really don't know anything about 'Christian radio'.

And...apologies if this is a baldly and painfully naive question, which it may well be, but...do you think if you'd spent years as a gay man in a social environment where those particular attitudes were openly displayed towards you at the direct-personal-contact level on a regular basis, that you might hear them as something more than merely offensive?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 03:01 PM   #405
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
This whole affair may have the effect of making it harder for "shock jock" broadcasters specifically, but I kind of doubt it's likely to have major repercussions for the likes of South Park or Chappelle. You may not be giving the average person enough credit for their ability to distinguish between sharp-edged performance art and plain old cruelty.



i think that's a fair point, though i'm not sure a large media corporation is going to give the average person enough credit to make such distinctions. i do find what Imus did different than, say, Chappelle's brilliant skit where he played a black, blind KKK grand wizard and when he overheard some white kids listening to hip-hop he called them "niggers" and all the white kids were thirlled. that's some complex cultural navigation; what Imus did was cheap. but it was also an aside. it might have been a cruel remark, but i just don't see it as premeditated cruelty. whether that's an important distinction, i don't know.


[q]Still, to repeatedly pick such cheap targets, and given that this was 'just' a sponsor-driven decision in the end...I just can't see cloaking him in that 'dared-to-push-the-boundaries' defense; the lack-of-perspective argument I can see, but I really loathe seeing people gratuitously anointed with the 'daring' label. Push the boundaries of what, and to what end? You know?[/q]

that's a fair point as well. there's shock for the sake of shock -- which might have some value, but then there's just plain old unimaginative nastiness, which i don't think this was. nasty, yes; unimaginative, no. give Imus credit for an incediary turn of phrase.

i see no value to Opie and Anthony recording someone having sex in a vestibule in St. Patrick's Cathedral. that seems analogous to the proverbial cherry bomb in the jr. high toilets. so it is a fine line, i agree, and there's a tendency for the unimaginative to do the cheap shocking thing instead of the thoughtfully shocking thing, and sometimes i don't think the comic even knows where that line is. i generally think Sarah Silverman is brilliant, but she's missed a few times. but i'd rather have her try and fail than not to try at all.


[q]Can you give some examples? I really don't know anything about 'Christian radio'.[/q]

generally talk shows from a Christian perspective, usually fundamentalist and evengelical. the most popular one is hosted by James Dobson (natch).

http://www.christianradio.com/search...&Submit=Search


Quote:
And...apologies if this is a baldly and painfully naive question, which it may well be, but...do you think if you'd spent years as a gay man in a social environment where those particular attitudes were openly displayed towards you at the direct-personal-contact level on a regular basis, that you might hear them as something more than merely offensive?

i'm not quite sure what's being asked here ... firstly, i grew up with homophobia my whole life, usually the casual locker room talk of athletes. and it does have a cumulative effect on one's sense of self-worth. which is why coming out was such a pleasant surprise -- no one actually thought i was the proverbial "fag" people talked about, and everyone has seemed verbally quite supportive of the political aspect of things. when i hear people in the media saying things about gays that are analgous -- or even worse -- than "nappy-headed hos," there's a tendency towards exasperation, irritation, etc. but it's just one more voice in the media, it's no one close to me. and my response is never self-induced anxiety -- "gosh, what if i really am a threat to children."

what i'm wondering if you're getting at would be some sort of equivalent -- say it were 1988, and Greg Lougainis just won his 4th gold medal in diving, and someone called him a "limp-wristed homo," how would i feel?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com