Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Don Imus

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

Here's a sign of the real trouble. Poet Maya Angelou calls for censoring "offensive" speech. She is not alone in feeling that way. People both of red and blue stripes feel this way, but in my experience in the press it tends more to be the PC left. I caught this at the NewsBusters.org blog, http://newsbusters.org/node/12022, which I quote.

In the wake of the Imus affair, MSNBC is airing an all-day discussion (Friday) on the theme "What's OK to say?" Poet Maya Angelou appeared at 11:05 AM EDT, and in the course of her interview with MSNBC's Peter Alexander, had this exchange:

ALEXANDER: Dr. Angelou, you're an author and an artist. I guess the question is, is there a need for more censorship of our media and of our arts, are you comfortable with that? And if that happens, when does it end? What is OK to say?

ANGELOU: Exactly. I agree with that. I think the society decides upon the censorship. Each person censors himself or herself. Do you think, if any of these hip-hoppers, if they said about Mrs. Bush what they say about black women, do you think they would be given a microphone? Do you really think so? So we have to censor ourselves. And then, the society makes that decision.

View the video at http://media.newsbusters.org/media/2007-04...SNBCAngelou.wmv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's a sign of the real trouble. Poet Maya Angelou calls for censoring "offensive" speech.
But the Imus fuss was not about initiation-of-force censoring. They didn't violate his rights or initiate any force.

By the way, you might be taking Mrs. Angelou out of context. (In the clip), she didn't say or answer that the government needs to provide more censorship. Rather, she said that, as individuals, we have to censor what we say or we will "not be given a microphone." If you run off your sponsors/profits, your employers will no longer give you a microphone - therefore you need to censor yourself. If this was Angelou's message, you could hardly disagree with her point.

Imus's treatment is the exact way people say animal abusers should be treated: shunning, but no violation of the abuser's rights. There then is irony in damning the assumed motives of Imus's detractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one validate the claim that men are stronger than women?

One can look at an enormous amount of physiological and scientific evidence to show this is generally true.

That Arabs are more likely that little old ladies to be terrorists?

One can look at repeated, documented patterns of terrorists attacks for specific evidence on this claim.

Claiming a group is more racists than another is not an analogous matter. "Personal observations" do not necessarily validate the claim you made. At best, your "personal observations" may validate the claim that of the people that you know and/or have observed, more of one race tends to be racist that the other. To expolate that to the larger group of the countless other folks you don't know or have never seen how they behave makes your "evidence" far less reliable and your claim far more shaky.

"Racist" acts can be very overt or very subtle. "Racist" thoughts or motivations may never be seen or noticed at all in the acts some people carry out. Some acts that may appear "racist" may be motivated by entirely different thoughts and ideas.

Labeling this or that person as a racist can be somewhat dicey unless you have access to their thoughts. Sure, some situations are perhaps more easily identifiable than others, but that isn't that case all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, poor, poor, poor white people. They've had it so badly.... blacks really should apologize to whites for how badly blacks have treated them.

What is the point of this remark? To insinuate that "whites" should apologize to "blacks"? If so, I'll make you a deal. You find every black slave I've owned, and I'll apologize to every single one of them. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with Wotan's statement that blacks are, as a general rule, more racist than whites. No one suggests that this statement applies to all blacks and, as such, it is not a racist claim. It's not racist for the same reason that it is not sexist to claim that men are physically stronger than women.

That's not really a valid analogy because men being generally stronger than women is a fact rooted in our biology.

By the way, personally I've encountered far more racist white people than blacks. The thing is, if you're a white person, you're far less likely to meet another white person that's racist to you (obviously). Hence it may seem to you that you there are far more racist black people than there are whites. Given that I'm neither black nor white (I'm Asian), I find that I experience racism (or perhaps ignorance) far more often from Whites. This is especially apparent when I date white women, be it from the people on the streets or from the girl's family members.

Personally I dislike when people play the race card for stupid reasons as much as anybody, but racism is honestly still something that happens all the time in the United States from my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can look at an enormous amount of physiological and scientific evidence to show this is generally true.

One can look at repeated, documented patterns of terrorists attacks for specific evidence on this claim.

Claiming a group is more racists than another is not an analogous matter. "Personal observations" do not necessarily validate the claim you made. At best, your "personal observations" may validate the claim that of the people that you know and/or have observed, more of one race tends to be racist that the other. To expolate that to the larger group of the countless other folks you don't know or have never seen how they behave makes your "evidence" far less reliable and your claim far more shaky.

Personal observations do not provide scientific proof, but they can be used as a means of making judgements. I have lived in 4 different states, and I have found it to be largely true. Your belief that Arabs are more likely to be terrorists is also based on personal observations, because I've got a sneaky suspicion that you have not performed any statistical tests to see if it is true.

I do not attempt to extrapolate this view to all blacks, in the same way that I don't try to extrapolate "greater physical strength" to all men. But if you take a group of 100 randomly-selected blacks and 100 randomly-selected whites and give them some sort of psychological test that attempts to measure racism, I'm about 85% certain that it would show the blacks to be more racists.

"Racist" acts can be very overt or very subtle. "Racist" thoughts or motivations may never be seen or noticed at all in the acts some people carry out. Some acts that may appear "racist" may be motivated by entirely different thoughts and ideas.

All true, but this doesn't really invalidate my point.

Labeling this or that person as a racist can be somewhat dicey unless you have access to their thoughts. Sure, some situations are perhaps more easily identifiable than others, but that isn't that case all the time.

But I haven't attempted to label any single person as racist unless I have reason to believe that he is. It's not like I see a black man on the street and automatically think, "he's a racist." But if you show me a black man and a white man and ask me who I think is more likely to be racist, I will point to the black man. Why? Because I have nothing else with which to make my judgement. If, upon further inspection, I find that the black man is Thomas Sowell and the white man is David Duke, my judgement will shift accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal observations do not provide scientific proof, but they can be used as a means of making judgements.

"Making judgements" and "validating claims" are two different beasts. I never said that you couldn't make judgements based on your personal observations. They just might not be based on actual reality.

Your belief that Arabs are ...

Actually, I didn't claim to believe that, I only offered a more scientific way to analyze that potential claim. Be careful what you assume.

All true, but this doesn't really invalidate my point.

I don't have to invalidate that which has yet to be validated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of this remark? To insinuate that "whites" should apologize to "blacks"? If so, I'll make you a deal. You find every black slave I've owned, and I'll apologize to every single one of them. Good luck.

My point was a critique of the new victim culture promoted by those who feel beseiged on all sides by the "PC police." Often their paranoia is just as strong as that of the Sharptonites.

When people like Moose feel entitled to spout off about how blacks are generally racist (even though he has no real evidence for that claim), then we need to be careful to censure (not censor) the new reverse-Sharptons amongst us. I think people like RationalBiker are doing exactly that.

Edited by Korthor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal observations do not provide scientific proof, but they can be used as a means of making judgements. I have lived in 4 different states, and I have found it to be largely true.

Again, assuming you're white, you aren't really going to notice racism directed towards you from other white people. You can walk into the middle of a group of white supremacists and you'd never know it if the subject of race didn't come up. I mean, it's not like every racist walks around talking about how much they hate minorities. It follows naturally that if you based racism on your personal experience, it would be completely biased depending on your race.

Like I said, being Asian and therefore neither black nor white, I notice far more racism from white people than blacks, although I'm unsure how accurate that is because I know far more white people than blacks. However I think between black and whites of comparable income and education level, blacks are far more sensitive, knowledgeable, and open about the race topic than whites. Your personal experience is only at best useful for determining how you would be treated racially, and not at all an accurate picture of the overall racist attitude among races.

You wouldn't believe the sort of comments I get when I walk into a bar with fairly attractive white women (all of which exclusively from white males), sometimes even in pretty racially diverse cities like New York. Now, I've never dated a black woman so I couldn't tell you first hand whether they'd react the same way, but from other interracial couples I've known in the past, blacks rarely get any comments from other blacks when they date inter-racially.

But I haven't attempted to label any single person as racist unless I have reason to believe that he is. It's not like I see a black man on the street and automatically think, "he's a racist." But if you show me a black man and a white man and ask me who I think is more likely to be racist, I will point to the black man. Why? Because I have nothing else with which to make my judgement.

Again, don't you think the reverse would be true if you asked a black man whether a white guy or a black guy is more likely to be racist, he'd say the white guy? Because I'm sure based on his personal observations, he would have experienced far more racial issues with white men than blacks.

Edited by Moebius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to link to a different version of that video — that one was put up there by David Duke's associates and advertises for his website.

I changed the link, though the content is the same regardless of who put it there and what there motivation was. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was a critique of the new victim culture promoted by those who feel beseiged on all sides by the "PC police." Often their paranoia is just as strong as that of the Sharptonites.

When people like Moose feel entitled to spout off about how blacks are generally racist (even though he has no real evidence for that claim), then we need to be careful to censure (not censor) the new reverse-Sharptons amongst us. I think people like RationalBiker are doing exactly that.

First of all, my apologies. I should have been more cautious with my tone given the shortcomings of internet communication. Now on to some of the substance of your response. :thumbsup:

If my memory serves, blacks support affirmative action by a large majority. (Whites and hispanics, on the other hand, are more evenly split.) If it is true that (1) affirmative action is a racist program, and that (2) blacks generally support it, does it not follow that blacks are generally racist?

Please let my query stand on its own, i.e. don't take it as necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anything Moose said. Also let it stand on its own in the sense that the same reasoning would apply to whites, men, the middle-class, pizza delivery guys, ocelots, or any other demographic. For example, if we concluded that half of whites supported affirmative action, and that affirmative action is a racist program, then mustn't we conclude that (at least) half of whites are racist?

So, in sum I guess:

1. Is affirmative action a racist program?

2. If one supports a racist program, does that make one a racist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people like Moose feel entitled to spout off about how blacks are generally racist (even though he has no real evidence for that claim), then we need to be careful to censure (not censor) the new reverse-Sharptons amongst us. I think people like RationalBiker are doing exactly that.

I beg your pardon, but how am I a reverse Sharpton? I have not suggested that blacks are generally racist. I have said that, in my experience, blacks tend to be more likely to be racist than whites. Sharpton is a racist, beyond any doubt. The only way to call me an reverse Sharpton would be to somehow show that I am racist.

My general observation, with which you obviously disagree, is no more racist than it would be to suggest that, in my experience, blacks are more likely to wear their baseball caps sideways. Despite the facts that it is based on personal experience and I have no "real evidence for that claim," you will probably agree with it.

I'd like to add that Thomas Sowell agrees with my assessment, and I have heard him explicitly say that he thinks blacks are generally more racist than whites. Larry Elder also agrees. In fact, he dedicated an entire chapter in one of his books to the observation. So if you're accusing me of racism against blacks for making that statement, then you should be prepared to say that Sowell and Elder are racist against themselves.

Edited by Moose
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"?

While nappy-headed ho is certainly an insult, not everyone understands it as a racial insult. If there is a change in how 'nappy' was originally used, a lot of people have yet to see the memo. That means they use the term with no racial connotation. That’s not like a gentile saying, "You're jewing me." It's more like Randal from Clerks 2 saying, "porch monkey."

Based on how Imus has defended himself, I'd say he understood the term to have racial connotations. That means he was, to some extent, being a race-baiting sensationalist. Now, compare the contribution race-baiting plays in Imus's celebrity to how it plays in Sharpton's and you'll see why I call Sharpton out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in this thread has defended Imus' comments. Everyone recognizes it as insulting and uncalled for, and I think most people recognize it as racially-charged. Whether or not Imus should have been fired is open for debate. I can see the arguments both ways, although I think a simple suspension would have sufficed. My purpose in creating this thread was to point out the utter hypocrisy of Al Sharpton and his cronies, and to make the point that, had the situation been reversed, no one would have noticed.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My general observation, with which you obviously disagree, is no more racist than it would be to suggest that, in my experience, blacks are more likely to wear their baseball caps sideways. Despite the facts that it is based on personal experience and I have no "real evidence for that claim," you will probably agree with it.

I thought Moebius in his recent post delivered a pretty devastating rebuttal of your "personal experience" argument. Moreoever, in my personal experience (as a white) whites are more likely to be racist. Maybe that is a geographical issue. I grew up in the American south where anti-black racism of the most pernicious variety is still very much alive and kicking.

Beyond that, I don't think you addressed my main reason for calling you a reverse Sharpton: your posts invoke a sense of entitled victimhood that sounds just like Sharpton. When you adopt the attitude that what is done to Imus hurts you, you sound just like Sharpton appropriating the harm done to the Rutgers basketball women.

So first we had racism. Then we had reverse racism. Now it seems we have reverse reverse racism.... Is that progress?

P.S. From my experience, white teenagers are more likely to wear their caps sideways... perhaps because of the influence of "hip hop" culture.

Edited by Korthor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for your accusation that I am a racist and, unless you can provide something other than my statements in this thread, you're going to have a hard time proving it. There is absolutely nothing I have said that qualifies me as a racist.

Find me a single quote where I invoke a sense of entitled victimhood. I don't recall ever suggesting that blacks owe me anything

Next, I'd like you to find a single quote where I said that what has been done to Imus hurts me. Oh wait, you won't find it because I didn't say it.

My whole point has been to show that Al Sharpton has absolutely no moral authority in this situation. If Barack Obama wants to call for Don Imus to be fired, fine. To my knowledge, Barack Obama has not instigated any racial pogroms that resulted in innocent deaths. Sharpton has. Condoleeza Rice recently stated she was glad that Imus was fired. How did I react to that news? Well, I didn't really react to it. I read her statements as I would read the statements of most people.

What's the difference? One is a respectable woman who got where she is on her own merit. One is an unmitigated racist bastard who has made a career out of trying to ruin the lives of as many white men as he can. Then there's the whole stuff about Freddy's Fashionmart, Tawana Brawley, and his racial slurs against Jews. I could go on, but there's no need.

As for my perceptions on racism in the black community...you can disagree if you like, but the fact is that neither one of us can prove it. You say you think whites are more racist...okay then, prove it. Before you demand that I prove my own belief, based on something other than personal observation, then you must be prepared to do the same. I am not obligated to prove my stance, because I explicitly said, from the very beginning, that it was a personal observation. But don't you dare call me a racist for declaring my own observation unless you are prepared to prove me wrong. Because in order to disprove my claim, you would have to simultaneously prove the opposite claim...namely that whites are more racist than blacks.

So, I challenge you again:

What have I said that qualifies as racist?

Where have I invoked a victimhood mentality?

Where have I suggested that I have been personally injured by the Imus affair?

Since you will not find examples of these statements, I will be awaiting your apology in my messagebox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to using racist words, I actually don't find it to be racist if a black uses it to refer to another black. If you're talking about calling women "bitches and hos," then I would agree, but that's sexism, not racism. I fully understand why it's okay for blacks to call each other "niggers." I, for one, would not feel insulted if I was called a cracker by another white man. Why? Because I know he's not implying anything racist. If a black man said it, I would probably assume it was meant in a racist way.

I suppose it's a double standard...if nothing else, it just keeps racial slurs on the airwaves, which is not something desirable. But I don't think that it's racist.

Edited by Moose
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...