[Shaddim]

CTV.ca | Anchor suspended for Tiger Woods 'lynch' comment

What a load of crap, a broadcaster gets suspended for using the word "lynch"? Tiger and Kelly Tilghman are close friends, for god's sake. It was a compliment, it was said to describe how difficult he is to beat.

Of course, most of this would have blown over if it weren't for the Rev. moron Sharpton:

"Lynching is not murder in general, it's not assault in general," Sharpton said. "It's a specific racial term that this women should be held accountable for. What she said is racist. Whether she's a racist ... is immaterial. She's a broadcaster. The channel has to be accountable to the public."

Then he called for her to be fired and demanded a meeting with the network to discuss reparations. This isn't like Imus or Fuzzy Zoeller's comments, there was zero ill intent. WTF is wrong with these people?


As an aside, I think the only consistent way to beat Tiger is with a 9 iron... to the head... while he's sleeping.

[Chuckit]

"Lynch" is not a racial term; it means to attack somebody as a mob. Sharpton is a nitwit — which is also not news.

[UpQuark]

Apparently, he has the brain cells (sarcasm) to know when a friend is making a joke/compliment/slur or not. What he thinks is the only thing that matters.. not what we think or the media or MR. Sharpton.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Geesh, well it was a pretty stupid statement. It's undeniable that using the term 'lynch' toward any black person carries with it unpleasant racial connotations, and it's more than just a bit ignorant not to know that, and to think one can just ignore the highly negative history behind lynching and race in this country.

However... I'm getting more than just a little sick and tired of this backward P.C. nonsense that because someone said something stupid, off color, or any level of racially charged, then let's NEVER consider the actual intent of what they were trying to say, and go straight for the McCarthy-esque blacklist.

I'm sick of the notion that offending people with a stupid comment is some blacklistable offense, or anything that people feel they have any right to demand someone else be fired for. It's time to take that kind of crap and shove it right back down the throats of crooked buffoons like Sharpton who makes a living off exploiting this ****. Every time the race-bait coalition defecates all over issues like this, they drag race relations that far BACKWARD, not forward.

[Dakar the Fourth]

It's unfortunate use of the term, but at some point we're going to have to get past all those things that occurred and not freak out just because someone had an uncomfortable moment on television.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sharpton is a nitwit — which is also not news.

I'm calling for Chuckit to be suspended as mod - without pay - for two weeks for this racist comment.

[Eug]

I'd have to agree with the suspension. It was a very stupid thing to say.

As much as I can't stand Sharpton, I think he's right this time... although not about the firing her part. Whether she's racist or not (probably not) and whether she's friends with Woods or not, this is quite an offensive thing to say. Some of you might not perceive it that way, but it certainly would come across as racist and offensive to me if I saw her on TV saying this.

[Chuckit]

Just because he's black? Would it still be racist if she'd said it about somebody white or Asian?

Seriously, I don't see how anybody could possibly think reparations are owed because she happened to use a common term in reference to a black person. I see where some people draw unfortunate connections, but the comment is not racist on its face, and I don't think we need to go trying to make innocent comments racist.

[Atomic Rooster]

Many whites have been lynched too as so asians. Lynching is not hanging but may include it. A good thumping by a mob in the alley is not racist.

Sharpton is a paranoid dickwad that likes to stir the kettle to keep whitey down.

He needs to be lynched by his own bros cause he just causes **** that makes it worse for black folk.

Edit: Just wanted to use this pic.

[BlueSky]

Until recently, when I saw a noose I thought of A) Halloween and B) cowboy movies (the old fashioned kind where they slept in separate sleeping bags). Now I guess it's the official symbol of oppression for certain individuals.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

Now I guess it's the official symbol of oppression for certain individuals.

Large numbers of innocent blacks were hanged from trees by white mobs, until nearly the middle of the twentieth century, as law enforcement mostly stood idly by. It was a widespread means of terrorism and oppression. I don't care about this particular use of the word "lynch," but I can see why some people would be touchy about it in general.

Sharpton has a way of coming off as a self-anointed gassbag, too. If he'd stick to real problems, instead of playing on hot-button emotional topics, he might make more real difference in the world instead of just stirring up sh*t. He's got mis-placed priorities.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Geesh, well it was a pretty stupid statement. It's undeniable that using the term 'lynch' toward any black person carries with it unpleasant racial connotations, and it's more than just a bit ignorant not to know that, and to think one can just ignore the highly negative history behind lynching and race in this country.

That pretty much sums it up right there. Given the circumstances I don't think she should be fired. A "slap on the wrist" suspension is appropriate. After that, just move on to more substantive and important things.

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Large numbers of innocent blacks were hanged from trees by white mobs, until nearly the middle of the twentieth century, as law enforcement mostly stood idly by. It was a widespread means of terrorism and oppression.

Yeah, but it's not as though blacks are the only folks who have ever been lynched. They're just one group out of countless others. Like I said, I can get why some people might groan at what this chick said, but to act as though lynching is a distinctly anti-black concept is also more than a bit ignorant.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Large numbers of innocent blacks were hanged from trees by white mobs, until nearly the middle of the twentieth century, as law enforcement mostly stood idly by. It was a widespread means of terrorism and oppression. I don't care about this particular use of the word "lynch," but I can see why some people would be touchy about it in general.

This is certainly true. But as quiet as its kept, lynching of blacks in the USA was not always limited to hanging. It very often included castration and burning in addition to the hanging. It was treated as a spectator sport, attended by angry white men along with their wives and children. If anyone is truly interested in learning more about why this is such a touchy subject to African-Americans I would suggest you take a look at the book Without Sanctuary. It is a "coffee table" book ... filled with loads of historical documentation and very graphic photographs. Definitely not material for the faint of heart, but it certainly would shed a lot of light on the sensitivity of the topic.

OAW

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, but it's not as though blacks are the only folks who have ever been lynched. They're just one group out of countless others.

1) she made a stupid comments given the connotation of lynching vis a vis African-American history,

2) The Sharpton Effect is another example of how certain words have been co-opted to further some political agendas in this country. He has taken "ownership" of that word, in effect, so the rest of us can't use it anymore. Just as the civil rights movement (and those against it) took "ownership" of the stars and bars -- it's off limits now.

Same with the word "gay" -- it used to mean happy & carefree (unlike most gay folks I've known through the years), but revisionists are now telling us that Fred and Barny were really going to have "a [homosexual] old time." Come on, everyone KNEW that "gay" meant "gay" way back when, but it really didn't.

Lynching is now property of Al & Jesse, and all of "those people" (to bring in another).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Just because he's black? Would it still be racist if she'd said it about somebody white or Asian?

Seriously, I don't see how anybody could possibly think reparations are owed because she happened to use a common term in reference to a black person. I see where some people draw unfortunate connections, but the comment is not racist on its face, and I don't think we need to go trying to make innocent comments racist.

The question is if she would have said it otherwise. Probably, but yes, for an Asian it'd probably be perceived as racist as well. Dunno about it being racist if a white person said it about a white player, but it'd still come across as inappropriate.

To say it on national TV suggests a certain level of insensitivity and stupidity. With her suspension she has time to think about that.

P.S. I don't even live in the US, and that comment makes me cringe.

P.P.S. Just because Sharpton is an irritating goofball at times doesn't mean everything he supports must be wrong. I agree with her bosses' choice to suspend her. The fact that Sharpton felt the comment is inappropriate doesn't suddenly make the comment appropriate just because you don't like him.

[BlueSky]

My view is, while the term "lynch" and more specifically an image of a noose may conjure upsetting notions in some people, it seems as though certain people are quick to step up and claim it as a symbol of their oppression, which IMO is unfortunate and unnecessary. I doubt that I'm alone in seeing a noose first as a solution for horse thieves in the old west, Halloween etc. and not much beyond that...and I'm not ignorant of history. It hasn't occurred to me until recently that it might be specifically offensive to some people.

So are we becoming more enlightened, now that nooses will almost certainly be seen as a racist symbol for the foreseeable future, or are our heads being inserted even further up our PC asses?

Edit: finboy said it so much better than I did:

2) The Sharpton Effect is another example of how certain words have been co-opted to further some political agendas in this country. He has taken "ownership" of that word, in effect, so the rest of us can't use it anymore. Just as the civil rights movement (and those against it) took "ownership" of the stars and bars -- it's off limits now.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

My view is, while the term "lynch" and more specifically an image of a noose may conjure upsetting notions in some people, it seems as though certain people are quick to step up and claim it as a symbol of their oppression, which IMO is unfortunate and unnecessary. I doubt that I'm alone in seeing a noose first as a solution for horse thieves in the old west, Halloween etc. and not much beyond that...

As a horse thief, I find your remarks highly offensive.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The question is if she would have said it otherwise. Probably, but yes, for an Asian it'd probably be perceived as racist as well. Dunno about it being racist if a white person said it about a white player, but it'd still come across as inappropriate.

To say it on national TV suggests a certain level of insensitivity and stupidity. With her suspension she has time to think about that.

P.S. I don't even live in the US, and that comment makes me cringe.

P.P.S. Just because Sharpton is an irritating goofball at times doesn't mean everything he supports must be wrong. I agree with her bosses' choice to suspend her. The fact that Sharpton felt the comment is inappropriate doesn't suddenly make the comment appropriate just because you don't like him.

If not for the race angle (which seems to be Sharpton's only card, and which I don't completely buy), I don't see how you can see this as inappropriate. She was joking that all the other players were going to want to take Tiger out of the running, Tonya Harding style, because he's so much better than they are. Unless you believe that any and all references to violence are inherently inappropriate, what's the issue?

It's not about disagreeing with Sharpton just to disagree with him. It's about not seeing anything inherently inappropriate about using the word "lynch" to mean "gang up on somebody and punish him" — that's what it means!

So tell me: Where's the beef?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

She was joking that all the other players were going to want to take Tiger out of the running, Tonya Harding style...

You've just really hurt Nancy Kerrigan's feelings. There's just no winning here, is there?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.P.S. Just because Sharpton is an irritating goofball at times doesn't mean everything he supports must be wrong. I agree with her bosses' choice to suspend her. The fact that Sharpton felt the comment is inappropriate doesn't suddenly make the comment appropriate just because you don't like him.

No, but because he is such a polarizing figure who actively seeks out attention, it's hard to take him seriously. If Sharpton feels something is inappropriate, my first instinct is that it's another thing he is blowing out of proportion so he can get attention. He needs to spend more time worrying about REAL problems that affect the black community instead of wasting his time chastizing people for using words HE deems offensive.

Better yet, Al Sharpton needs to come out with a book or pamphlet listing all the words us whiteys are not allowed to use. At least then we will know before the word gets used.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If not for the race angle (which seems to be Sharpton's only card, and which I don't completely buy), I don't see how you can see this as inappropriate. She was joking that all the other players were going to want to take Tiger out of the running, Tonya Harding style, because he's so much better than they are. Unless you believe that any and all references to violence are inherently inappropriate, what's the issue?

It's not about disagreeing with Sharpton just to disagree with him. It's about not seeing anything inherently inappropriate about using the word "lynch" to mean "gang up on somebody and punish him" — that's what it means!

So tell me: Where's the beef?

The beef is she said a black man in America should be lynched. Even if this meaning was not intentional, the connection is obvious to some, and apparently not to others (ie. you). As much as you try to rationalize it, "lynching" someone has very specific connotations in North America. Words develop different meanings as time goes on.

Even if it's a joke, it shows extremely poor judgement for a TV sports anchor.

I'm sure Woods doesn't even care that much. However, I can assure you a lot of others do. Hell, even I cringed when I read that, and no I'm not an Al Sharpton fan.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

No, but because he is such a polarizing figure who actively seeks out attention, it's hard to take him seriously. If Sharpton feels something is inappropriate, my first instinct is that it's another thing he is blowing out of proportion so he can get attention. He needs to spend more time worrying about REAL problems that affect the black community instead of wasting his time chastizing people for using words HE deems offensive.

Better yet, Al Sharpton needs to come out with a book or pamphlet listing all the words us whiteys are not allowed to use. At least then we will know before the word gets used.

Agreed. Al Sharpton is damn annoying.

My point though is that I too think that comment is completely inappropriate, regardless of what Al Sharpton thinks.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So when talking about a Jewish person, it'd be fine to say something off the cuff like, "his rivals should make a lampshade out of him, or toss him in a gas oven!"

It's meant as a compliment. Nope, I couldn't have possibly chosen any among practically endless other examples of "getting rid of someone" to make my point. No sir. Lampshades and gas ovens it is.

Hey, lots of people have had lampshades made from their skin. Lots of people have been gassed. The term 'lampshade' and the term 'gassed' aren't exclusive to Jews. I don't see where anyone could draw any sort of historic connection between Jews, lampshades, and gas ovens, none what-so-ever.

Sure, we can all pretend that there's no historic context between things that would piss anyone off for putting them (for no real reason) together... if we're all willing to be equally ignorant of history. The only problem with that seems to be, a lot of people AREN'T willing to ignore historic context for the sake of a lame statement.

[vmarks]

(actually, the lampshades thing never happened. Soap, ovens, gold teeth fillings collected and made into new things, yes. Lampshades? no.)

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

CTV.ca | Anchor suspended for Tiger Woods 'lynch' comment

What a load of crap, a broadcaster gets suspended for using the word "lynch"? Tiger and Kelly Tilghman are close friends, for god's sake. It was a compliment, it was said to describe how difficult he is to beat.

Of course, most of this would have blown over if it weren't for the Rev. moron Sharpton:

"Lynching is not murder in general, it's not assault in general," Sharpton said. "It's a specific racial term that this women should be held accountable for. What she said is racist. Whether she's a racist ... is immaterial. She's a broadcaster. The channel has to be accountable to the public."

Then he called for her to be fired and demanded a meeting with the network to discuss reparations. This isn't like Imus or Fuzzy Zoeller's comments, there was zero ill intent. WTF is wrong with these people?


As an aside, I think the only consistent way to beat Tiger is with a 9 iron... to the head... while he's sleeping.

Kudos to Tiger Woods for not blowing this out of proportion. It was a stupid thing to say, sure, but that should hardly cost her a job.

Shame on Sharpton for trying to stoke racial tensions instead of taking constructive actions towards a better world.

[BadKosh]

If Sharpton, Jack(ass)son et al were really serious, they would have been cracking down on the rappers n thugs who are all the real racists.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So when talking about a Jewish person, it'd be fine to say something off the cuff like, "his rivals should make a lampshade out of him, or toss him in a gas oven!"

It's meant as a compliment. Nope, I couldn't have possibly chosen any among practically endless other examples of "getting rid of someone" to make my point. No sir. Lampshades and gas ovens it is.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it illustrates my point very well. Surely you can see the difference between using a generic word meaning "attack as a mob" and specifically referencing the Holocaust. That's precisely what I'm getting at: This is something that I could see just as easily being said about anyone. A Holocaust reference would be a Holocaust reference no matter what, but a remark like this that could have been made about somebody of any race? I have trouble seeing that as racist. I mean, slaves were beaten — can we no longer talk about somebody beating Tiger either?

Like I said, I can see why people might get a little jolt at this. It's kind of like a Tom Swifty. But it's not so flagrantly insensitive that I feel like somebody should have to lose her job or pay reparations over it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm glad you brought this up, because it illustrates my point very well. Surely you can see the difference between using a generic word meaning "attack as a mob" and specifically referencing the Holocaust. That's precisely what I'm getting at: This is something that I could see just as easily being said about anyone. A Holocaust reference would be a Holocaust reference no matter what, but a remark like this that could have been made about somebody of any race? I have trouble seeing that as racist. I mean, slaves were beaten — can we no longer talk about somebody beating Tiger either?

Like I said, I can see why people might get a little jolt at this. It's kind of like a Tom Swifty. But it's not so flagrantly insensitive that I feel like somebody should have to lose her job or pay reparations over it.

It's very insensitive to her viewership.

However, I don't think she should lose her job over it. I agree with the suspension.

[Atomic Rooster]

Is broom the coon okay to say?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Is broom the coon okay to say?

I dunno. You could always just give it a shot in conversation.

[jaydon34]

As a black man what she said was stupid and as a broadcaster like a journalist should uphold a higher standard of ethics when communicating towards the public. Nonetheless I do believe she meant to use the word lynch as just a mob beating tiger and not with any racial connotations. For the simple fact her words may be misconstrued as a freudian slip she deserves to be punished although not fired.

[Kerrigan]

Sharpton and his crowd are all a bunch of idiots. He's even calling the Clintons, of all people, racist. People like Tiger Woods or Obama don't need that clown defending them, they got where they were thanks in part to the legacy of people like MLK but also through their own hard work. All Sharpton does, through his ignorant, thoughtless, public aggravations of racial matters, is lend credence to the stereotype that black people are helpless and hasty and need someone like him to take care of them from evil white supremacists like Hillary Clinton or Tiger Woods' friend.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As an aside, I think the only consistent way to beat Tiger is with a 9 iron... to the head... while he's sleeping.

Haha,

I'm all with you. When will this darn ni....twit shut up ?

-t

[Zeeb]

While there are certainly legitimate racial comments that are made that deserve condemnation this particular comment deserves neither a firing nor a suspension. It was clear that absolutely nothing racially offensive was meant by it and this type of extreme sensitivity erodes free speech.

Al Sharpton can claim literally any random combination of words as offensive--should we run all transcripts, screenplays and novels by him to be sure? I'm sure he would love that. What's shameful about this situation is that the Golf Channel(who was watching it anyway?) so quickly caved in to an unreasonable claim and punished her at all. In this case, there was simply no reasonable way to discern that this comment would have been offensive. The only reason some suddenly consider this offensive is because of Al. Must be a slow month for him.

[cSurfr]

Why does everything have to be about race? Last time I looked up Lynch in the dictionary, it said this:

verb [ trans. ]
(of a mob) kill (someone), esp. by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.

If we would all stop living in the past for crimes that WE didn't commit, life would be so much easier. . .

[Eug]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Why does everything have to be about race? Last time I looked up Lynch in the dictionary, it said this:

verb [ trans. ]
(of a mob) kill (someone), esp. by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.

That was already brought up and discussed.

eg. The word "gay" doesn't actually mean "homosexual", but if you called Mike Tyson gay he'd probably punch you in the face.

The word "lynch" has acquired a very specific meaning in North America, precisely because it was a partially race-related crime in American history.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The word "gay" doesn't actually mean "homosexual"

Whoever told you this was yanking your chain. It surely does mean "homosexual." Ask the dictionary if you don't believe me.

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That was already brought up and discussed.

eg. The word "gay" doesn't actually mean "homosexual", but if you called Mike Tyson gay he'd probably punch you in the face.

The word "lynch" has acquired a very specific meaning in North America, precisely because it was a partially race-related crime in American history.

Sure, it has a specific meaning if you live in the past. This is the reason that we will NEVER move on.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Whoever told you this was yanking your chain. It surely does mean "homosexual." Ask the dictionary if you don't believe me.

It does now... but not in the past.

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Sure, it has a specific meaning if you live in the past. This is the reason that we will NEVER move on.

Sure, we've moved on... We don't usually talk about lynching black people.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm glad you brought this up, because it illustrates my point very well. Surely you can see the difference between using a generic word meaning "attack as a mob" and specifically referencing the Holocaust.

This is funny, because you recognize 'gassing Jews' as specifically relating to the Holocaust, yet somehow can't see that 'lynching blacks' carries EXACTLY the same negative historic connotation. That amazes me.

I could use your argument to try and explain away a lame comment about gassing a Jewish person being okay, because hey, the definition of gassing could apply to anyone. I could have been referencing the Kurds in Iraq perhaps. I could post dictionary definitions of the term 'gassing' and be 'oh-so-clever' about saying how it has nothing specifically to do with Jews, so why doesn't everyone just move on. If I want to make statements about gassing Jews with no historic context, I should be allowed to and everyone else should just move on.

And yet you recognize instantly that that doesn't fly, and why.

It just amazes me that anyone thinks 'lynching blacks' doesn't carry just as much historic baggage, and can be seperated from the negative connotations of those two things combined, any more than 'gassing Jews' can. I can only conclude it's due to an ignorance of history, and historic context.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Eug 

but if you called Mike Tyson gay he'd probably punch you in the face.

What, for calling him 'lame' ?

[PaperNotes]

YouTube - The Fast Show - Tiger Woods

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Whoever told you this was yanking your chain. It surely does mean "homosexual." Ask the dictionary if you don't believe me.

You're right but only in new dictionaries... I've got an old dictionary made around 1957 that does not define gay as homosexual or anything like that. It's another word that has changed meanings.

[Eug]

Free Online Dictionary: Lynching

"Violent punishment or execution, without due process, for real or alleged crimes."

The concept of taking the law into one's own hands to punish a criminal almost certainly predates recorded history. Lynching (or "lynch law") is usually associated in the United States with punishment directed toward blacks, who made up a highly disproportionate number of its victims. (While the origins of the term "lynch" are somewhat unclear, many sources cite William Lynch, an eighteenth-century plantation owner in Virginia who helped to mete out vigilante justice.)

Lynching acquired its association with violence against blacks early in the nineteenth century. It was used as a punishment against slaves who tried to escape from their owners. Sometimes, whites who openly opposed Slavery were the victims of lynch mobs as well. Perhaps not surprisingly, lynching did not become a pervasive practice in the South until after the Civil War. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted blacks full rights of citizenship, including the right to Due Process of Law. Southern whites had been humiliated by their loss to the North, and many resented the thought that their former slaves were now on an equal footing with them (relatively speaking). Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camelia attracted white Southerners who had been left destitute by the war. These groups promoted violence (sometimes indirectly) as a means of regaining white supremacy.