Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Don Imus

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

The man made a stupid remark. But I am absolutely disgusted with the way this is being played out. On top of the aburd level of hypocrisy displayed by Al "Diamond Merchants" Sharpton, practically everyone in the media is calling for him to be fired. Advertisers are pulling their ads. It is certainly their right to do so. But they wouldn't be doing it at all if not for all this media hooplah. People sometimes speak before they think. Everyone does it. Unfortunately for Don Imus, he happens to be a radio host with millions of listeners, who all happened to be listening when he made his stupid comment.

He is now being investigated by the FCC, which is beyond ridiculous. I guess I missed watching the news on the day when racial slurs were made illegal.

Fear of being labeled "racist" has gotten to truly ridiculous proportions in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fear of being labeled "racist" has gotten to truly ridiculous proportions in this country.

What I find hilarious is that Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson and Al "Diamond Merchant" Sharpton are some of the most hypocrite racist bastards you will ever come across. This is, pun sort of intended, the pot calling the kettle black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this story because I'm a cable news junkie and that's all cable news is talking about. Most people are NOT calling for his firing. Al Sharpton and P/G are fairly alone here.

I agree that the whole thing has taken a life of its own that's a bit annoying given all the incredibly important things going on in the world right now. Nonetheless, I don't think it's bad for people to debate and discuss the appropriate limits of racist speech, what the penalties for such speech should be, and whether an apology is enough. I am of course speaking within the context of the free market, and there really isn't a FCC issue since the FCC doesn't regulate racist speech (which it considers content), only profantity.

Finally, what he said was extremely insulting to a bunch of 19 year old atheletes who have worked really hard to get where they have. I personally don't care whether Imus stays or goes (his program is god awful boring and pointless), but I won't cry if he goes.

Edited by Korthor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the FCC doesn't regulate racist speech (which it considers content), only profantity.
This is mostly true. There is, however, nothing to stop the FCC from making a mess of the situation if it decides it's politically advantageous to do so. When the airwaves are "owned" by the "public" and broadcasters operate for the "public good," regulators can get away with anything.

Isn't it fascinating how, whenever someone gets accused of saying something inappropriate in the media, other media outlets use it as an excuse to loudly and frequently repeat the impropriety? Except, of course, when the object of ridicule is Islam.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never listened to Imus in the morning, I've only heard a clip or two. I have no interest. There are some buttons on my radio that I can use to avoid listening to things I don't like. I use them all the time when the scan stops on christian music channels or rap. Do other people know about these buttons? If people stop listening, and sponsors stop paying, those shows get cancelled.

:)

Laissez-Faire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the sanction of the victim - in this context, Imus made the mistake of apologizing, thereby granting his opponents' position. If he had defended himself consistently and as a matter of principle (admittedly hard for an unfunny comedian to do - the only way to know his intentions were humorous is to take his at his word), then this might have died down quickly. When he chose to engage the issue, he inflamed the situation and then it snowballed, garnered even greater attention, and he began to lose advertisers and was suspended.

Now maybe he would have been suspended and lost advertisers anyway, but at least he would not have been a willing participant in his own destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with him apologizing. He made a comment that was offensive and inappropriate, so an apology seems like a proper response. The problem is that he didn't stop at just apologizing...he has groveled at the feet of the race whores. Then again, you have to take into account that he was probably instructed to do so by his employer.

By the way, what the hell does "nappy-headed" mean?

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He made a comment that was offensive and inappropriate

I know that this is easy to conclude given the lack of humor in his show but I must disagree. The purpose of offensive and inappropriate language in the context of comedy is to relieve tension and diffuse the power that such taboos have. The psychological need for humor is no less than the need for music or other forms of pleasure for most people for exactly that reason. Only when the context is dropped, and Imus is treated as though he were the anchor of a nightly news program instead of the host of a comedy show, are the words necessarily offensive and inappropriate. Although the fact that he isn't funny doesn't help his case, the fact is that comedy is hard, so I am willing to take him at his word that his intentions were sincere. As such, he had nothing to apologize for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who defend the content of his speech, I think it's important to make a distinctoin between:

1. Racist speech that deals in stereotypes in general (e.g., Sharpton's comments about "diamond merchants").

2. Racist speech targeted at particular individuals.

The first might sometimes be OK, especially in a humorous context (e.g., Southpark). The second is almost always wrong, and that's what Imus did.

This was probably the best moment of these kids lives, the product of years of dedication and hardwork, and then Imus calls them in particular "nappy-headed hos." That's just wrong, and the fact that some on this forum feel the need to defend it disgusts me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imus was right to apologize. At best, he took the focus off of the team's achievements, and targeting them because of their race is innappropriate.

Took whose focus off their achievements? His own focus, I guess, and maybe that of his relative handful of listeners ... that hardly consistutes the focus. And how do you know that he targeted them because of their race? That's an unwarranted assumption.

For those who defend the content of his speech, I think it's important to make a distinctoin between:

1. Racist speech that deals in stereotypes in general (e.g., Sharpton's comments about "diamond merchants").

2. Racist speech targeted at particular individuals.

The first might sometimes be OK, especially in a humorous context (e.g., Southpark). The second is almost always wrong, and that's what Imus did.

That's a fair distinction. I need to chew on that for a bit.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright I've chewed and decided that the distinction is irrelevant. The idea that we can't make fun of people is preposterous. Now as Trey Parker will tell you, if you want to make fun of someone you have to make fun of everyone - which I take to mean, you can't discriminate. So we can reasonably ask whether Imus discriminates in choosing only certain people or members of groups as his targets, but not on whether the targets are actual people per se.

Note that I certainly wouldn't say it was nice of him, only that I yet to be convinced that they were necessarily improper in this specific context.

Edit - by the way, for sake of contrast, I would not in any way defend Michael Richards' racial outburst. The difference is that by his own admission, his intention was malicious. That intention is essential in judging a case of this type. Motives matter.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue seems to be the distinction between humor and insult, which often quite grey as demonstrated in Southpark. I think Imus was meaning to be funny and came off as insulting. Is insulting people OK? I would say insulting "civillians" (i.e., non-celebrities) on national radio is bad. He probably shouldn't be fired, but to say that he should have stuck to his guns (as some have suggested) is ridiculous. If you insult someone who didn't deserve insulting, even unintentionally, then basic human decency suggests that you apologize. That was how I was raised anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue seems to be the distinction between humor and insult, which often quite grey as demonstrated in Southpark. I think Imus was meaning to be funny and came off as insulting. Is insulting people OK? I would say insulting "civillians" (i.e., non-celebrities) on national radio is bad. He probably shouldn't be fired, but to say that he should have stuck to his guns (as some have suggested) is ridiculous. If you insult someone who didn't deserve insulting, even unintentionally, then basic human decency suggests that you apologize. That was how I was raised anyway...

Imus did not make a racial slur. He said that some of the women on the Rutgers rugby team were "nappy headed hos." He was making fun of their appearance, particularly their nappy hair and the way they dress. For those who might not have heard what he said or read the transcript, it was said as part of a conversation with another member of the cast where they talked about how they were "tough chicks" with muscles and tattoos. Folks, they are female rugby players. They are not delicate little flowers. Imus did not attack the black race. He put down a handful of loud girls with ratty hair.

What Imus really did wrong is that he insulted the wrong people. It is OK to attack white men, business people or Republicans. It is not OK in our irrational society to put down anyone who is black, a woman or someone from another minority, liberals or other Democrats or in much of the country, anyone who is gay. On the latter, that depends on what part of the country because even in blue states gays and disabled people are the last acceptable discriminations by the general public.

Imus insulted loud black liberals who are part of a victim culture that was nurtured in the wake of World War II by the same people of the so-called greatest generation that brought us the welfare state, new math, bad public schools and most of the nations ills. The kinds of people making hay about Imus' comments make money and obtain power through the free publicity they receive by being obnoxious.

This is how it works: He who shouts the loudest wins. Or is it more politically correct to say he/she/it who shouts/expresses themselves the loudest/most passionate wins/empowers themselves?

My media brethren have more fun by inaccurately referring to Imus saying a racial slur in their biased reports. It sells papers and brings ratings, and furthers the liberal/victim agenda. That was his mistake. It's not what you say, but subjectively who you say it about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Imus really did wrong is that he insulted the wrong people. It is OK to attack white men, business people or Republicans. It is not OK in our irrational society to put down anyone who is black, a woman or someone from another minority, liberals or other Democrats or in much of the country, anyone who is gay. On the latter, that depends on what part of the country because even in blue states gays and disabled people are the last acceptable discriminations by the general public.

Imus insulted loud black liberals who are part of a victim culture that was nurtured in the wake of World War II by the same people of the so-called greatest generation that brought us the welfare state, new math, bad public schools and most of the nations ills. The kinds of people making hay about Imus' comments make money and obtain power through the free publicity they receive by being obnoxious.

I agree that there is a double standard, and that certain people (namely Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson profit by stirring up racism). I disagree with everything else. How did Imus insult "loud black liberals who are part of a victim culture"? He insulted people (who happened to be black) at the height of their success, using derogatory, racially charged language.

Imus was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man made a stupid remark. But I am absolutely disgusted with the way this is being played out. On top of the aburd level of hypocrisy displayed by Al "Diamond Merchants" Sharpton, practically everyone in the media is calling for him to be fired. Advertisers are pulling their ads. It is certainly their right to do so. But they wouldn't be doing it at all if not for all this media hooplah. People sometimes speak before they think. Everyone does it. Unfortunately for Don Imus, he happens to be a radio host with millions of listeners, who all happened to be listening when he made his stupid comment.

He is now being investigated by the FCC, which is beyond ridiculous.

That I didn't realize. That's terrible.

I guess I missed watching the news on the day when racial slurs were made illegal.

Fear of being labeled "racist" has gotten to truly ridiculous proportions in this country.

This is true, and don't for a minute believe leftists are against racism. They promote it as a good thing; they just don't use that word. They've been pushing for diversity, and belittling color blindness for years. They call the idea of color blindness "naive". The idea of diversity is a racist promoting idea. The entire left wing apparatus -- university, k12 schools, and any number of other outlets -- is used to promote diversity.

Who are they trying to kid?

I thought that what Imus said was low rent, and he should have been criticized, but that the response was way out of proportion. Now seeing what Antonio says above gives me a perspective I wasn't aware of. If that's what he said, then it wasn't racist, but it also means that he should have stuck to his guns and stood by what he said. It also means there are people out there searching out a way to be offended. That is fascinating to me. There are people who crave to be victims or to create a scene. I need to ponder that one.

Btw, Rush Limbaugh has been attacked in similar ways the last few years, and he stuck to his guns, because he knew he wasn't racist and that he was being vilified wrongly. As a result, he's stronger than ever.

As an aside, I've never liked Imus. He's a liberal, and has a very negative outlook on life in general. Still, apparently he’s being given a bad wrap.

I really think this thing has to be turned around on the people who are making these charges of racism. They are the real menace here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He put down a handful of loud girls with ratty hair.

These were disciplined varsity atheletes, not hooligans. Why are they "loud girls"? Is their hair "ratty"? Where's your evidence?

Even if you're right about the way that some (e.g., Sharpton) have exploited the situation, it doesn't make what Imus or you said any less despicable.

I haven't seen you, but you definitely have a loud mouth and a ratty soul. And I bet your hair is ugly too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just sick of seeing people's lives be destroyed because they make an off-hand racial comment that they probably would not have made, had they had about 5 seconds to think about it.
Would it make a difference whether he probably had had several minutes to think about it?

How do you know that he targeted them because of their race?
"Nappy-headed" doesn't really refer to people of other races.

I would not in any way defend Michael Richards' racial outburst. The difference is that by his own admission, his intention was malicious. That intention is essential in judging a case of this type. Motives matter.
So judge angered racists, but not joking racists?

Imus did not make a racial slur. He said that some of the women on the Rutgers rugby team were "nappy headed hos." He was making fun of their appearance, particularly their nappy hair.
Slur or not, you don't consider that racist? What if he'd said "black-skinned hos" or "wide-nosed hos" or "slave-descended hos"?

At any rate, if someone wants to boycott him for his comments (I don't) I don't see anything wrong with that. His bosses would be a bit hypocritical for allowing him this type of speech for so long and then now acting shocked that he says such things. And there are certainly some folks trying to cash in.

I don't think Imus "owes" any one or any race an apology. But that doesn't change an assessment of Imus and his comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nappy-Headed" is used almost exclusively as a derogatory adjective describing black people's hair, which is naturally very curly and can be difficult to comb. "Ho" is a derogatory term for women, mostly used in the black community. This is how my generation uses these terms, anyway (I'm 28). So to call someone a "nappy-headed ho" is most certainly a racially charged insult. There may be a culture gap between Imus's generation and younger folks, so he may not have realized how people would take it.

That said, I think the reaction is way overblown. If I was one of the Purdue players, my initial reaction would be annoyance, followed very closely by apathy. Who gives a rat's ass what Don Imus thinks, anyway?

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were disciplined varsity atheletes, not hooligans. Why are they "loud girls"? Is their hair "ratty"? Where's your evidence?

Even if you're right about the way that some (e.g., Sharpton) have exploited the situation, it doesn't make what Imus or you said any less despicable.

If what Antionio said is true, then it's not "despicable". He's basically calling them on their behavior and grooming. The exploitation of this situation is way over the top.

To contrast, the Duke Lacrosse team was falsely accused of rape, and almost successfully railroaded by Nifong and the several of the Duke faculty, who demonized the team members without any evidence. The press has not come down on any of these people for what is a real racist/sexist crime, since the players were presumed guilty because they were white and male. That was despicable, and it was systematic, because it comes from "intellectuals" who spend their lives studying these things.

I haven't seen you, but you definitely have a loud mouth and a ratty soul. And I bet your hair is ugly too.

And the proper reaction should be "sticks and stones".

Now, if you want to be outraged, then here is something that should make you outraged:

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070411/3/305uj.html

excerpt:

Wednesday April 11, 8:36 PM

YALA, Thailand (Reuters) - A Buddhist woman was shot and burned alive

in Thailand's violence-torn Muslim-majority south on Wednesday,

prompting angry protests in front of visiting army chief Sonthi

Boonyaratglin.

Watcharaporn Boonmak, 26, was ambushed by gunmen as she rode her

motorcycle through a Muslim village in Yala, one of the three southern

provinces roiled by three years of separatist insurgency in which more

than 2,000 people have been killed.

"She might have been shot in the stomach before they set fire to her

and her motorcycle," a Yala police officer, who asked to remain

anonymous, told Reuters by telephone.

One of her relatives told Reuters that witnesses at the scene heard

Watcharaporn, a garage clerk, screaming and crawling along the road

for help but nobody dared respond for fear of reprisals.

Even by the standards of a conflict that has seen well over a dozen

civilians beheaded, it was a shocking incident.

"It is the most cruel and brutal thing I've seen in my life," Jaran

Kongchuay said as he joined hundreds of Buddhists bearing

Watcharaporn's charred body on a hospital stretcher to the provincial

hall, demanding action from Sonthi.

"Beheading or burning alive, no one is arrested!" one of their

placards read. "Will the government please pay closer attention to the

three southern border provinces?" another said.

…

So, in the first case a radio show host who has been doing radio for who knows how many years (decades?), and never had a reputation as a racist, is suddenly thrown under the bus for a questionable remark. He literally harmed no one. In the second case you have innocent people railroaded and vilified because of their race and sex. They were put through hoops, and were threatened with serious felony charges and jail time by a corrupt DA. In the final case you have an innocent girl who is brutalized and murdered by muslims.

Press coverage has been respectively: 1> Over the top. 2> Mild for the innocent. 3> Virtually non-existent (I had to go to little green footballs to find it).

The point is there is something out of whack in the treatment of these events. The reason is postmodernism.

Edited by Thales
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nappy-headed" doesn't really refer to people of other races.

You're missing my point - racism implies animus for another race. It's easy to take words out of their full context, but

and bear in mind that he has expressly said that his purpose was comical. To me, it sounds like a stupid, lighthearted, throwaway comment, not one arising out of serious hatred and racial animus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what Antionio said is true, then it's not "despicable". He's basically calling them on their behavior and grooming. The exploitation of this situation is way over the top.

What was wrong with their "behavior" or "grooming"? Were they behaving badly? Why is not having straight blonde Nazi hair bad grooming? So black people are OK as long as they look and act like white people? I'm glad Imus made his comments so all the racists would out themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imus did not make a racial slur. He said that some of the women on the Rutgers rugby team were "nappy headed hos." He was making fun of their appearance, particularly their nappy hair and the way they dress.

Thanks for saying this. I have met white people who have described their hair (accurately) as nappy. I don't know where the geographical/vernacular boundaries are, but there seems to be a divide in how the word is used. I imagine it is more likely to be seen as a racist comment where victim culture is thriving. Its like the evil version of appropriating a word to shatter its meaning.

Now, of course this doesn't mean Imus's comments were appropriate or accurate, but I still think it is being blown way out of proportion by race-bating sensationalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When whites use the word "nappy" to describe their hair, it's sort of like Gentiles accusing other Gentiles of "jewing" them when they're being cheap. The word is inherently racially charged, although I do not believe that Imus was motivated by racial aniumus.

Seriously, is there anyone who could interpret "nappy-headed hos" as anything but an insult?

And when Imus uses such language (which he has done repeatedly in the past) for ratings, how is he not being a "race-baiting sensationalist"?

Edited by Korthor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...