[Orion27]

Liberals have found conservatism. We witness the birth of Neo-Liberalism in America as seen in the demise of Don Imus. The backlash against Don Imus is a watershed moment when the liberal tolerance for the ethnic slur and the anti social mores of black culture embodied in the hip hop movement has come to an end.
Imus Now Off MSNBC - News Story - WNBC | New York

[Uncle Skeleton]

Um, someone tell me I'm not the only one thinking this:

"you're an ass with your stereotypes."

Also this:

[Helmling]

That just doesn't even make sense.

[Atomic Rooster]

Huh?

[Uncle Skeleton]

err, reference

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, someone tell me I'm not the only one thinking this:

"you're an ass with your stereotypes."

Also this:

It's quite entertaining. AND fat free!

[besson3c]

Who is the Mommy and Daddy of Neo-Liberalism?

[lpkmckenna]

Since neo-liberalism is an old movement, I suspect we're closer to its retirement than its birth.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who is the Mommy and Daddy of Neo-Liberalism?

The list of advertisers bailing out on liberal MSNBC.
And the 88 professors Duke Univeristy who who hung it's students without a trial.

[Face Ache]

Century of the Self

"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." - Adam Curtis


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Orion27 will love Part 4.

[OldManMac]

Um, you might to do some research on what neo-liberalism is and how old it is. You'd spare yourself a lot more embarassment, or would you rather just continue pulling stuff out of thin air, and changing definitions of existing beliefs to suit your own, like you've been doing all along?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Um, you might to do some research on what neo-liberalism is and how old it is. You'd spare yourself a lot more embarassment, or would you rather just continue pulling stuff out of thin air, and changing definitions of existing beliefs to suit your own, like you've been doing all along?

You speak of neo-liberalism. I'm talking talking about Neo-Liberlarism with a captital N as in Nappy. Get with it KarlG you never struck me as a classicist anyway.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Century of the Self

Great Post! I'll get back to you after chapter 4!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Um, you might to do some research on what neo-liberalism is and how old it is. You'd spare yourself a lot more embarassment, or would you rather just continue pulling stuff out of thin air, and changing definitions of existing beliefs to suit your own, like you've been doing all along?

I don't think he's overly concerned with avoiding embarrassment.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The list of advertisers bailing out on liberal MSNBC.
And the 88 professors Duke Univeristy who who hung it's students without a trial.

I love your smokescreen distraction debate style

I was going to say either God or Jesus for the Daddy, but I hadn't decided on the Mommy.

[besson3c]

I just figured out the Mommy:

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just figured out the Mommy:

I think you nailed it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I don't think he's overly concerned with avoiding embarrassment.

That's true. What was I thinking?

[anonymac]

blacks are a bunch of nappy headed whiny cry babies, and liberals are fueling the fire.

[Big Mac]

I don't think this is neo-liberalism responsible for iMus getting the boot - I think it's simply a question of corporate interest.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think this is neo-liberalism responsible for iMus getting the boot - I think it's simply a question of corporate interest.

From where is corporate taking it's que? MSNBC has said itself, which may be self serving, it took the action because of internal pressure in it's news division.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

That's true. What was I thinking?

You da man Karlg. Nice of you to join the discussion on such an elevated level.

[osiris]

More like the birth of homogenized pussyism.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by osiris 

More like the birth of homogenized pussyism.

You are correct sir!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

From where is corporate taking it's que? MSNBC has said itself, which may be self serving, it took the action because of internal pressure in it's news division.

And in any case, iMus isn't really a liberal at all.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by osiris 

More like the birth of homogenized pussyism.

So, it's you who gets to decide what's offensive to other races? Why didn't Imus check with you to see if what he said was all right, and then he could have avoided this whole mess? Anything goes, right?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And in any case, iMus isn't really a liberal at all.

Who knows what Imus is. It's illustrative to see the stream of house liberal enablers first coming to embrace and defend and then scurry away as Imus is thrown overboard. And by Whom? There is now a Liberal pogrom now going on inside NBC news.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, it's you who gets to decide what's offensive to other races? Why didn't Imus check with you to see if what he said was all right, and then he could have avoided this whole mess? Anything goes, right?

Be careful KarlG. You seem to be the one who is taking sides here. Let's see how far these inrtrospective enablers will take PC now. We are all going to have a lesson in free speech. Free speech according to the NAACP, Rev Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Woo Hoo!

[osiris]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, it's you who gets to decide what's offensive to other races? Why didn't Imus check with you to see if what he said was all right, and then he could have avoided this whole mess? Anything goes, right?

Calm down there, KarlG.

No, it's not me who decides.
But if it was up to me, any joke made at the expense of any culture would be acceptable. I do not discriminate.

There is always a grain of truth to the jokes, and frankly, stereotypes can be funny.
Just because a particular culture is more sensitive than another isn't my problem.

[osiris]

And the fact the USA is wasting time and resources on this topic when an idiot child president is in the white house doing far more damage than Imus could ever do is far beyond me.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Calm down there, KarlG.

No, it's not me who decides.
But if it was up to me, any joke made at the expense of any culture would be acceptable. I do not discriminate.

There is always a grain of truth to the jokes, and frankly, stereotypes can be funny.
Just because a particular culture is more sensitive than another isn't my problem.

This wasn't a joke. It was a racial insult. If we make fun of someone who does something silly, or stupid, or some such thing that we all do, such as walking into a glass door, or doing something wrong while not paying attention, etc., that's a joke, as it involves laughing at ourselves as much as laughing at the other person. Calling someone a nappy headed ho is designed simply as a put-down, to show that you're superior to that person, especially if you're white and they're black. There's a huge difference, and it seems that a lot of people can't, or in many cases, don't want to see that, as they need to "justify" their behavior. I'm quite sure that black people who've been lynched and murdered just because they're black didn't find it funny, just because the perpetrators laughed at it.

The real problem here is that some people don't know what boundaries are and as a result, they can't see how they offensive they are.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

This wasn't a joke. It was a racial insult. If we make fun of someone who does something silly, or stupid, or some such thing that we all do, such as walking into a glass door, or doing something wrong while not paying attention, etc., that's a joke, as it involves laughing at ourselves as much as laughing at the other person. Calling someone a nappy headed ho is designed simply as a put-down, to show that you're superior to that person, especially if you're white and they're black. There's a huge difference, and it seems that a lot of people can't, or in many cases, don't want to see that, as they need to "justify" their behavior. I'm quite sure that black people who've been lynched and murdered just because they're black didn't find it funny, just because the perpetrators laughed at it.

The real problem here is that some people don't know what boundaries are and as a result, they can't see how they offensive they are.

You're exaggerating to make a weak point. No one was lynched, no one walked into glass, etc...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by osiris 

And the fact the USA is wasting time and resources on this topic when an idiot child president is in the white house doing far more damage than Imus could ever do is far beyond me.

Why is this far beyond you? It shows how gullible the people are, in a society where anything goes and where instant gratification is more important than anything. Anna Nicole Smith is more important than the Walter Reed Medical center scandal because people have become shallow. It's easier to talk about Anna Nicole at the watercooler than it is to possibly offend your coworkers about the boy who would be King. There's nothing surprising about this, and it's because of that this country is going downhill. People don't care about others.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by osiris 

You're exaggerating to make a weak point. No one was lynched, no one walked into glass, etc...

Then carry on in making your stereotypical "jokes," but be honest with yourself and don't pretened amazement when the recipients find them offensive.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Why is this far beyond you? It shows how gullible the people are, in a society where anything goes and where instant gratification is more important than anything. Anna Nicole Smith is more important than the Walter Reed Medical center scandal because people have become shallow. It's easier to talk about Anna Nicole at the watercooler than it is to possibly offend your coworkers about the boy who would be King. There's nothing surprising about this, and it's because of that this country is going downhill. People don't care about others.

People care about the wrong issues, or at best, issues they can benefit from - political or otherwise. I know that.

What's your point?

[osiris]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Then carry on in making your stereotypical "jokes," but be honest with yourself and don't pretened amazement when the recipients find them offensive.

Again, you misunderstand because you pre-judge me.

I find the humor funny because it is offensive. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be funny.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

This wasn't a joke. It was a racial insult. If we make fun of someone who does something silly, or stupid, or some such thing that we all do, such as walking into a glass door, or doing something wrong while not paying attention, etc., that's a joke, as it involves laughing at ourselves as much as laughing at the other person. Calling someone a nappy headed ho is designed simply as a put-down, to show that you're superior to that person, especially if you're white and they're black. There's a huge difference, and it seems that a lot of people can't, or in many cases, don't want to see that, as they need to "justify" their behavior. I'm quite sure that black people who've been lynched and murdered just because they're black didn't find it funny, just because the perpetrators laughed at it.

The real problem here is that some people don't know what boundaries are and as a result, they can't see how they offensive they are.

I sorta agree with KarlG. The problem is you have the pot calling the kettle black.
We have a liberal media, who have enabled Imus for years, Yuck yuck, wink wink, while at the same time accusing others, for political purposes, of being racist or bigoted. Now the liberal media is being called out. And by whom? The same race baiters the liberal media has, again and to reiterate, enabled in the past and still continue to give them a pass, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. And to watch these commentators, such as David Gregory, who was fixture at Imus's show sit and evade any responsiblity while passing judgment is just hilarious.

[osiris]

That's great Orion27, who'd a thunk that it would take a libertarian to bring a rightie and leftie together.

[sek929]

Since when did the First Amendment take a back seat depending on the race of the person speaking?

If Chris Rock said what Imus said it would have been a joke, but instead words become different based on the color of a person's skin. This is discrimination and segregation at it's finest.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Since when did the First Amendment take a back seat depending on the race of the person speaking?

If Chris Rock said what Imus said it would have been a joke, but instead words become different based on the color of a person's skin. This is discrimination and segregation at it's finest.

[Dakarʒ]

I always think of the Chappelle show. A white comedian couldn't have gotten away with that.

Of course, most people don't realize a white guy wrote half the show.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, it's you who gets to decide what's offensive to other races? Why didn't Imus check with you to see if what he said was all right, and then he could have avoided this whole mess? Anything goes, right?

So where do you draw the line?

What if hispanics think green pants are offensive? Am I then not allowed to wear green pants? Everyone is so bent on equality that the result is just the opposite - minorities are placed above the majority. Don't believe me? Picture the situation as Rutgers being an all white team, and him calling them "a bunch of crackers who can't jump." It wouldn't have even made the news.


The truth of the matter is his comment was said in jest, and it just so happens that he said it on a day where the news didn't have anyone else to burn at the stake. So he loses his job because the people involved wanted someone else to make the devil, so that in their minds their (vastly greater) inadaquecies aren't so bad.

[OldManMac]

It probably doesn't mater to some of you, but here's one person's explanation.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/12/485/

Why ‘Nappy’ Is Offensive
by Zine Magubane

When Don Imus called the Rutgers University basketball team a bunch of “nappy-headed ho ‘ s” he brought to the fore the degree to which black women’s hair has served as a visible marker of our political and social marginalization.Nappy, a historically derogatory term used to describe hair that is short and tightly coiled, is a preeminent example of how social and cultural ideas are transmitted through bodies. Since African women first arrived on American shores, the bends and twists of our hair have became markers of our subhuman status and convenient rationales for denying us our rightful claims to citizenship.

Establishing the upper and lower limits of humanity was of particular interest to Enlightenment era thinkers, who struggled to balance the ideals of the French Revolution and the Declaration of Independence with the fact of slavery. The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen did not discriminate on the basis of race or sex and had the potential to be applied universally. It was precisely because an appeal to natural rights could only be countered by proof of natural inequality that hair texture, one of the most obvious indicators of physical differences between the races, was seized upon. Nappy hair was demonstrable proof of the fact that neither human physiology nor human nature was uniform and, therefore, that social inequalities could be justified.

Saartjie Baartman, a South African “bushwoman,” was exhibited like a circus freak in the Shows of London between 1810 and 1815. The leading French anatomist of the day, George Cuvier, speculated that Baartman might be the “missing link” between the human and animal worlds because of her “peculiar features” including her “enormous buttocks” and “short, curling hair.”

In “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson reflected on why it would be impossible to incorporate blacks into the body politic after emancipation. He concluded it was because of the differences “both physical and moral,” chief among them the absence of long, flowing hair.

For a runaway slave, the kink in her hair could mean the difference between freedom in the North and enslavement or worse if she were to be caught and returned to her master. Miscegenation meant that some slaves had skin as light as whites and the rule of thumb was that hair was a more reliable indicator than skin of a person’s racial heritage. Thus, runaway slaves often shaved their heads in order to get rid of any evidence of their ancestry and posters advertising for fugitive slaves often warned slave catchers to be on the lookout for runaways with shaved heads : “They might pass for white.”

In the late 1960s, after the FBI declared Angela Davis one of the country’s 10 most wanted criminals, thousands of other law-abiding, Afro-wearing African-American women became targets of state repression — accosted, harassed, and arrested by police, the FBI, and immigration agents. The “wanted” posters that featured Davis, her huge Afro framing her face like a halo, appeared in post offices and government buildings all over America, not to mention on television and in Life magazine. Her “nappy hair” served not only to structure popular opinions about her as a dangerous criminal, but also made it possible to deny the rights of due process and habeas corpus to any young black woman, simply on the basis of her hairstyle.

For African-American women, the personal has always been political. What grows out of our head can mean the difference between being a citizen and being a subject; being enslaved or free; alive or dead. As Don Imus found out this week, 300 years of a tangled and painful racial history cannot be washed away with a simple apology.

Zine Magubane is an associate professor of sociology and African diaspora studies at Boston College.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The truth of the matter is his comment was said in jest, and it just so happens that he said it on a day where the news didn't have anyone else to burn at the stake. So he loses his job because the people involved wanted someone else to make the devil, so that in their minds their (vastly greater) inadaquecies aren't so bad.

Put it into context:

- The US had slavery and its legacy is still alive today.
- Black people are on average more socio-economically disadvantaged
- Racism is endemic

IMO the most surprising part is that this guy won't be charged for racism. If this guy said something like that in Canada, it would probably be classified as hate speech.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So where do you draw the line?

What if hispanics think green pants are offensive? Am I then not allowed to wear green pants? Everyone is so bent on equality that the result is just the opposite - minorities are placed above the majority. Don't believe me? Picture the situation as Rutgers being an all white team, and him calling them "a bunch of crackers who can't jump." It wouldn't have even made the news.


The truth of the matter is his comment was said in jest, and it just so happens that he said it on a day where the news didn't have anyone else to burn at the stake. So he loses his job because the people involved wanted someone else to make the devil, so that in their minds their (vastly greater) inadaquecies aren't so bad.

The color of someone's pants has nothing to do with their racial identity, thus it's a ludicrous example.

The truth of the matter is that you don't know in what context it was spoken; you're speculating. He said it was a joke, and he probably meant it as such, so I'll take his word, but that's as much as you or I know. What you, and apparently a lot of others, don't seem to grasp is that the words he used have a historically significant negative meaning associated with racism. As I've said before, some people think the world revolves around them, and think that this entitles to them say whatever they want, and they have no concept of boundaries of acceptability, so they believe that everyone else should just accept whatever they spew out. These people aren't cognizant of the fact that other people have feelings, because they don't, so everything is appropriate. When an issue such as this arises, they just stand there, with a blank look on their face, and repeat ad nauseum, "Jeez, it was just a joke." They're no doubt also many of the same people who say that racism is no longer a problem, because a civil rights law was enacted many years ago.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

For Pete's friggen sake.

Sure, what he said was offensive, but since when is 'offensive' a crime?

It literally amazes me the absolute totalitarian ideas some people proudly profess (hate speech? He would be charged with a crime? WORDS compared to lynchings and such?!) Good friggen grief.

And yet, such folks are often the ones pointing their fingers at everyone else and loudly yelling "fascist."

[smacintush]

"Freedom of speech" should not mean "Freedom FROM speech."

But this is the liberal way: People need to be "protected" from "exposure" to things like religion and free speech. God forbid someone be exposed to an opposing idea! Or even WORSE be OFFENDED! My lord no!

I guess when you can't win people's hearts you silence them with laws, (campaign finance reform, hate speech laws) and when the laws reach their limits you silence them like this. Ah, the power of the willing accomplices in the media!

I don't really care about Imus's politics. To me that's entirely beside the point. This whole thing is just stupid.

[anonymac]

Regardless of what all the whiny, cry-baby liberals and blacks think, you won't get rid of racism by censoring speech and thought.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

IMO the most surprising part is that this guy won't be charged for racism. If this guy said something like that in Canada, it would probably be classified as hate speech.

Well I am real f**kin' glad I don't live in Canada then.

Don Imus has done plenty of good in this world, what have you done?

Does hearing people talk the way people really talk scare you?

I guess euphemistic watered down doublespeak is the answer.

BTW the Irish were considered worse than Blacks when they were Americas desperately poor. I'm sure if Imus called Notre Dame's team a bunch of Micks he wouldn't have lost his job.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The color of someone's pants has nothing to do with their racial identity, thus it's a ludicrous example.

The truth of the matter is that you don't know in what context it was spoken; you're speculating. He said it was a joke, and he probably meant it as such, so I'll take his word, but that's as much as you or I know. What you, and apparently a lot of others, don't seem to grasp is that the words he used have a historically significant negative meaning associated with racism. As I've said before, some people think the world revolves around them, and think that this entitles to them say whatever they want, and they have no concept of boundaries of acceptability, so they believe that everyone else should just accept whatever they spew out. These people aren't cognizant of the fact that other people have feelings, because they don't, so everything is appropriate. When an issue such as this arises, they just stand there, with a blank look on their face, and repeat ad nauseum, "Jeez, it was just a joke." They're no doubt also many of the same people who say that racism is no longer a problem, because a civil rights law was enacted many years ago.

I listened to the whole excerpt.


Why then, is it ok for groups such as "nappy roots" to be successful and syndicated/distributed by such corporations as MSNBC?

I'll tell you why - racial double standards. Its ok for the black man to use the N word in every day life but as soon as a white man says it he's the scurge of the earth.

"Why then do some people think the world revolves around them." Good expression, I was going to use it myself.

If nappy is a derogatory word then no one should be allowed to use it, regardless of skin color...and thats what you seem to miss...there's a racial double standard in this country when it comes to what vocabulary is deemed offensive by the pollitically correct groups out there.

And as a side note, when the hell did calling an asian person "oriental" become offensive? Did i miss the memo?


If Imus can't use words like nappy then neither should anyone on broadcasted media. Thats the double standard. Thats the inequality.