Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Posted: **May 13th, 2007, 10:19 pm**

The connection is that corporate censorship of bigotry gets everyone up in arms, but corporate censorship of information about crimes we commit around the world gets… dead silence.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 2:05 am**

eyelidlessness wrote:The connection is that corporate censorship of bigotry gets everyone up in arms, but corporate censorship of information about crimes we commit around the world gets… dead silence.

Oddly, I caught some hell for saying something very similar to this in the last thread, coming from a different angle. OK, so it's not a free speech issue... not technically. I heard someone describe it that way on Leno's show and I just went with it... incompletely thought through on my part.

Still though, I wonder. Shock "entertainment" is full of this sort of envelope-pushing stuff, and like a few others I was curious why, out of all the bullshit uttered regularly by shock jocks and comics, was this particular utterance singled out from all the others? Many if not most shock jocks should also be boycotted and/or fired (not a bad idea, perhaps) if this is some sort of cultural "tipping point" or new tolerance threshold, as some have suggested. Your answer is probably "who cares?", and that's not a bad answer. Despite my lingering on this issue, I don't care either. Not really. But I was curious as to why this particular dumbass remark warranted such gi-normous outrage

So then... there are definite rules to doing "shock humor", despite its ostensible "anything goes" attitude. The appropriateness of racial humor depends on what?... on context, skilled or smart delivery, and who is doing the talking, I suppose, with emphasis on the latter factor. E.g. Carlos Mencia gets away with liberal usage of "wetback" because it's wrapped in effective social satire routines but mainly because of his ethnic identity, whereas someone like Imus would never get away with using the same word in the same routines (no matter how "cleverly done"), at least not on the same major media venue...

Hmm..... Anyway, it's late & I'm rambling on again. Thanks for the education. Appreciate it.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 2:55 am**

A few thoughts;

Was it that Imus had a contract with a very open job description, but the gist of his contract was to "push the envelope over the edge, so it would generate a certain type of fanbase, until, unfortunately Imus went over the line with "nappy headed Ho's?

Or was it that his job was actually to push the envelope over the edge until someone like Sharpton came along and made a big issue of it even though it has probably been said publicly before? Maybe the real truth is that Imus successfully accomplished what his corporate financers wanted him to, his own demise by taking it over the line. So that Sharpton could get some positive publicity? Maybe free speech is just something that because of our corruption, it can't really even be a reality.
It's more about strategy perhaps? Publicity. The dough.

I suppose anyone could say "nappy headed Ho", but that is not something that I would choose to say in any given situation. I mean why? It says more about the person resorting to that kind of insensitivity for kicks.
Like Bush and Cheney do.
They can say and do anything they damn well please....

"I don't care too, much for money, money can't buy me love..."
H

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 3:10 am**

mnaz wrote:Oddly, I caught some hell for saying something very similar to this in the last thread, coming from a different angle.

I'm not surprised. It's not something people like to hear.

Still though, I wonder. Shock "entertainment" is full of this sort of envelope-pushing stuff, and like a few others I was curious why, out of all the bullshit uttered regularly by shock jocks and comics, was this particular utterance singled out from all the others?

The anti-racist media watchers are human, and they have to choose their battles. My guess is that they saw the potential gain in choosing this particular target, and went with it. I can't really speak for them though, as I didn't have any input on the matter. (Frankly, I think anti-racist activists in general should put more energy into challenging subtle racism among liberals and moderates, rather than the obvious stuff that's far less dangerous.)

Many if not most shock jocks should also be boycotted and/or fired (not a bad idea, perhaps) if this is some sort of cultural "tipping point" or new tolerance threshold, as some have suggested.

I don't think that's going to happen.

Your answer is probably "who cares?", and that's not a bad answer.

Actually, and I'm not just saying this to be contrary, that might be a big deal. And in a good way. Large-scale rejection of this kind of cultural poison might be a sign of cultural growth and evolution, which is something we really need, don't you think?

Despite my lingering on this issue, I don't care either. Not really. But I was curious as to why this particular dumbass remark warranted such gi-normous outrage

Right place, right time is my guess.

So then... there are definite rules to doing "shock humor", despite its ostensible "anything goes" attitude.

I was talking (okay, grumbling) to a friend about this topic, and I mentioned my feelings on free speech. My friend and I are both radical left, and have had frustrations with "free speech" advocates, but I clarified that I am in favor of free speech, but that my interpretation of the issue is very different from what I see as the usual liberal interpretation. The major difference is this: you can say whatever you want, but I won't necessarily defend to the death your right to say it without getting your teeth kicked in (it depends what you said, why you said it, who you said it to, who's kicking, and so on).

The correlation, I think, with "shock jocks" is that they're liable to get their teeth kicked in, and they haven't really demonstrated that they want to avoid that. They also haven't demonstrated why I should care about their sorry asses.

The appropriateness of racial humor depends on what?... on context, skilled or smart delivery, and who is doing the talking, I suppose, with emphasis on the latter factor. E.g. Carlos Mencia gets away with liberal usage of "wetback" because it's wrapped in effective social satire routines but mainly because of his ethnic identity, whereas someone like Imus would never get away with using the same word in the same routines (no matter how "cleverly done"), at least not on the same major media venue...

Actually if you're saying Imus wouldn't get away with it because he's white, I don't agree, and I point back a few posts to my name drop of Sarah Silverman. Jesus is Magic is peppered with "nigger", "chink", "faggot", and so on. But where Don Imus nudges you with his elbow and says, know what I mean? (the intended audience is other bigots), Silverman's persona is deliberately obnoxious and self-mocking (the intended audience is people who think bigots are obnoxious).

That's an important distinction.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule about how obnoxious you can be before you'll get your teeth kicked in. But I think that if you're as old as Imus and you haven't figured it out, maybe you never will.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 3:51 am**

Hester, I think what eyelidlessness is saying is that 1)People do have free speech; just not necessarily on a private media bandwidth if sponsors and listeners strongly object and boycott, etc., and 2)issues of context and intent of the shock humorist determine appropriateness of his "shtick".

eyelidlessness, I think your POV here are reasonable-- no major disagreement-- and your Silverman example is illuminating. I won't add anything other than to say that judging the intent of a shock humorist as you described does have some degree of subjectivity-- a matter of opinion to some extent.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 12:06 pm**

eyelid-guy: "But where Don Imus nudges you with his elbow and says, know what I mean? (the intended audience is other bigots)..."

I've gotta take issue with that underlined comment only because that reinforces the idea that that's all Imus was - a bigot. As one who has publicly admitted (on S8 anyway) that I enjoyed his show, comments like that peppered throughout this thread, make the assumption that anyone who watched his show was somehow bigoted.

Somewhere on that thread I asked Deb if his audience was made up of bigots would it not follow that all of his guests would also be bigots. No answer or comment on that.

Anyone who watched his show (or heard his radio show) for any length of time would know, his guests included a very large segment of people, both men and women, both entertainers and politicians, news reporters, magazine contributers across the spectrum, etc.. Judging by inferences such as yours (and Deb's) would logically put all those same guests into the 'bigot pile.' A broad sweep of a condemnation such as that has within itself, a touch of bigotry.

As I would derive from reading your various posts on this topic, eyelid, I would assume you are quite well informed with many things. Would you not agree that bigotry falls into the lap of virtually every race, every creed, every political persuasion, every religion, indeed every person could be tagged a bigot if Joe or Jane Public were to investigate everyone's private life. To completely silence 6 billion people's thoughts and actions towards anyone that did not fit into their ideas of what is better or best is an ideal set in an illusory world.

I feel if anyone would like to express themselves on any level that would 'smell' of this word, bigotry, would be far better off using humor than violence, rather than forcing one's own mouth shut and never to say what one feels. If one speaks on any level that may reveal even the lowest level of bigotry, would do nothing for the general public other than another add one more insistence of repression. Repression for any length of time will only lead to a serious repercussion that would have been dissuaded by the more favorable and acceptable alternative of humor, which goes on daily throughout the globe.

Cecil... withdrawing into the background once again.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 1:33 pm**

mtmynd wrote:I've gotta take issue with that underlined comment only because that reinforces the idea that that's all Imus was - a bigot. As one who has publicly admitted (on S8 anyway) that I enjoyed his show, comments like that peppered throughout this thread, make the assumption that anyone who watched his show was somehow bigoted.

Actually, that's not an assumption I made. What I was saying was that the intended audience of his bigoted "humor" is other bigots. If you find "nappy headed ho's" funny, you're a bigot. Sorry dude.

Somewhere on that thread I asked Deb if his audience was made up of bigots would it not follow that all of his guests would also be bigots. No answer or comment on that.

Anyone who watched his show (or heard his radio show) for any length of time would know, his guests included a very large segment of people, both men and women, both entertainers and politicians, news reporters, magazine contributers across the spectrum, etc.. Judging by inferences such as yours (and Deb's) would logically put all those same guests into the 'bigot pile.'

Let's be fair. People who unquestioningly participated in his show are, at the very least, tolerant of bigotry.

A broad sweep of a condemnation such as that has within itself, a touch of bigotry.

Er… what? So like, you decide that I'm saying something I'm not, then take it to far broader conclusions than intended, then (politely) call me a bigot?

Would you not agree that bigotry falls into the lap of virtually every race, every creed, every political persuasion, every religion, indeed every person could be tagged a bigot if Joe or Jane Public were to investigate everyone's private life.

I guess it depends what you mean by "bigotry". But on its surface, no, I wouldn't agree.

To completely silence 6 billion people's thoughts and actions towards anyone that did not fit into their ideas of what is better or best is an ideal set in an illusory world.

Huh? Who's silencing anyone?

I feel if anyone would like to express themselves on any level that would 'smell' of this word, bigotry, would be far better off using humor than violence, rather than forcing one's own mouth shut and never to say what one feels. If one speaks on any level that may reveal even the lowest level of bigotry, would do nothing for the general public other than another add one more insistence of repression. Repression for any length of time will only lead to a serious repercussion that would have been dissuaded by the more favorable and acceptable alternative of humor, which goes on daily throughout the globe.

I honestly cannot understand what you're saying here.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 3:08 pm**

Just reposting Cecil's comments about the Don Imus Show from the other thread because in my opinion, Cecil was unjustly called a bigot in the other thread just because he liked the show. I think that you're right, eyelidlessone, that there may be an element of "tolerance" for racial slurs but that doesn't mean someone likes them or finds them funny!

I'm sure you'll agree.

mtmynd wrote:Hi, Deb-

Seems as tho Soo and I have missed quite a bit while we've been busy on our pulpits, traveling around the country 'guru-ing' to the masses about our bigotry and racism, not to mention our undying support for our leader, Don Imus.

Seriously tho, Deb, I ask that you explain your statement that Soo & I are racists and bigots due to the fact that we enjoyed (most of the time) the Don Imus show? In case you are unaware of this, if we enjoyed his show your comments would point the finger of racism and bigotry towards anyone who watched/listened to his show, would it not..?

During the times we watched his show Imus had guests such as Aaron Neville, various black athletes (many who were awarded by their profession) and several black musical groups including The Blind Boys of Alabama, and several acts that included black back-up musicians such as Harry Connick, jr. Would any racist ever invite blacks (or any race that he looked down upon) on their shows?

Don Imus also had as welcomed guests people in government including Joe Biden, Joe Liberman (Jewish) and Harold Ford (a black, who he gave complete support to), among many others that respected this man's show and influence to get things done. He had Donald Trump. He had various anchor news people (examples: Charlie Gibson, Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams) and various other news organizations. He had numerous political news reporters and columnists from Newsweek, Time, Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Times... the list is very, very long.

If I 'supported' Don Imus by watching his program, surely the huge list of his invited guests would, (by your definition), also be racists and bigots, would they not? Would you personally attack any of these people that came on his show as being what you have accused me and Soo of? I think not.

If Don Imus were truly a racist would he have picked up a black teenager with cancer from Phoenix and brought him to Atlanta on his jet? If Imus were truly a racist would he and his wife attended the funeral of a black teenager who had died from cancer (one that attended his Ranch for Kids with cancer)? Of course not. Racists would go out of their way to avoid assistance to any race that they hated.

As far as your calling Soo & I 'bigots'... allow me to paste the definition of such:

bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

As you can read, this is actually quite an ambiguous definition, given some serious thought. Are proud, loyal, flag-waving Americans 'bigots' because they are partial to their own nation and intolerant of any nation that may disagree? Are blacks or hispanics, for example, 'bigots' because they may be intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them and their culture?

By loosely using the word, 'bigot' in describing Soo & I, you infer that since we are Texans and live in a 'small town' that we are bigots... that and we enjoyed the Don Imus show. This would seem to me to be an action from "one who is strongly partial to one's own group or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Deb... Soo & I have refrained from eating any meat from mammals for nearly 20 years. But if we attend a dinner party that serves beef or pork, we don't call the people eating those meats names and stomp out of the party. We respect their differences as we respect their friendship. When Imus said some things that made us uncomfortable, we stayed with the show because that was his part of his 'dinner offering,' something we knew he would do on occasion. We stuck with him for the many other wonderful attributes he had, much as perhaps you stay with your husband or close friends, even tho there may be one thing that really disturbs you within their character.

The Imus Ranch is a very expensive operation. In part it is funded by the Imus Ranch products, including cleaning products that are 100% environmentally green. All his products are sold with 100% of the profits going into the Ranch. There may be some other people/corporations doing that, but I'll bet they could be counted on one hand. Imus's wife, Diedre, is a spokeswoman for autism... spending a great deal of time with the cause, even though neither she nor her husband have an autistic child. With his encouragement, his wife has launched a program of 'greening up' hospitals, even to the point of having one in New Jersey(?) having gone completely green. His wife is also a vegetarian and has Imus himself eating the same way. This in itself is rather unusual as they both are Republicans, but this is in part why I find/found him to be a pretty interesting fellow to tune in to. Despite his grumpy attitude obviously lies a great big and generous heart, a person, and couple that care a great deal about children, about our veterans, our environment and our political future.

Yes, his three words, "nappy-headed ho's,'" got him fired from both MSNBC and CBS... and they were arguably the final straws that broke the proverbial camel's back, but I am most disappointed by the absence of simply knowing there was/is so much good that came from this man. It would be a real shame for all those that could not wait for him to be fired to also know that behind those three words is a man (and his wife and son) that cares deeply about our country, it's politics, it's environment and it's health for it's children. I sometimes sadden at the thought that his wonderful actions mean far less than those three words. But it happened. And I, for one, believe everything happens ultimately for the greater good.

Peace to you, Deb.

Cecil

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 3:20 pm**

eyelid: "Let's be fair. People who unquestioningly participated in his show are, at the very least, tolerant of bigotry"

Since we're on the subject, let's review two definitions as presented:
American Heritage Dictionary: bigotry: (n) The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
and the Houghton-Mifflin Thesaurus: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice.

eyelid: "People who unquestioningly participated in his show are, at the very least, tolerant of bigotry."

Sorry, dude... going by the socially acceptable definition of the word, bigotry, "intolerance" appears to be common place. If I read you correctly, you seem to be intolerant with other's viewpoints that differ from your own. One could surmise that you have an "irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group" that enjoyed viewing and participating in The Don Imus Show... and I may add, you are among the most vociferous of those that never heard or saw his show. Your irrationality towards those that enjoyed and/or participated in his show, you recklessly call, "at the very least, tolerant of bigotry." That by strictly recognized definition would indeed include you under the broad brush of bigotry. You are waving your colors of intolerance towards those that happened to enjoy watching or listening to the multi-faceted faces of this man's show.

I asked you: "Would you not agree that bigotry falls into the lap of virtually every race, every creed, every political persuasion, every religion, indeed every person could be tagged a bigot if Joe or Jane Public were to investigate everyone's private life."

And you, eyelid, replied: "guess it depends what you mean by "bigotry". But on its surface, no, I wouldn't agree."

The subject we are discussing and laying our facts on the line for/against should not be a "guess" game but rather one that deals with facts based upon logic, definition and social acceptance.

Since you wouldn't agree, and then say nothing more on the subject, indicates that you are simply cutting short the comment/question I raised in the paragraph you quoted. No debate on your part, I assume? Is it really all cut and dry opinions on your part that I am supposed to bow down to and accept without question or doubt?

eyelid: "Huh? Who's silencing anyone?"

You and those that are intolerant of words may not be silencing anyone but are doing your most vocal to silence those that are not as serious as you in your admission to stop or curtail how people express themselves.

Your final comment: "I honestly cannot understand what you're saying here."

Allow me to cut and paste said paragraph again, and I invite you to let it soak in a little before you jump to any conclusions -

Cecil repeats:

I feel if anyone would like to express themselves on any level that would 'smell' of this word, bigotry, would be far better off using humor than violence, rather than forcing one's own mouth shut and never to say what one feels. If one speaks on any level that may reveal even the lowest level of bigotry, would do nothing for the general public other than another add one more insistence of repression. Repression for any length of time will only lead to a serious repercussion that would have been dissuaded by the more favorable and acceptable alternative of humor, which goes on daily throughout the globe.

IMHO, you and Deb are tossing the word 'bigot' around as if the word should never exists and should be eliminated from the vocabulary of not only the English speaking dictionaries but anyone's lexicon... as if that would bring to a screeching halt all 6 billion people's 'attitude, state of mind' towards intolerance.

It far better to accept the reality and lighten up rather than be intolerant towards those that you freely label as 'bigots' in the most negative light. It does nothing for you or those you label.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 4:30 pm**

Well, as we've discussed, racial humor abounds in today's shock entertainment landscape, often involving the use of traditional/historical racial slurs themselves that are arguably stronger than "ho", which has become all too common in hip hop/rap culture in general. I think Deb and eyelidlessness are saying that Imus uses racial-type speech with sole, deliberate intent to degrade his targets, and therefore must be a racist bigot and his show must be specifically aimed at like-minded people, or people who wrongly tolerate this sort of speech, whereas other shockers such as Chappelle, Mencia, Silverman, etc., use objectionable racial speech in a more sohisticated way to mock or degrade the idea of such speech. That seems to be the gist of it.

Couple of comments:

Deliberate intent solely to degrade is a bit of a subjective call, though I can't necessarily refute it. Perhaps genuine careless unsophistication may have as much or more to do with it than intent. But then maybe this subtle distinction is immaterial in the minds of many at this point...

The other thing is, from what I read, Imus has a history of objectionable speech, much of it racial in nature. Perhaps the cumulative effect of it over the years finally brought on a large backlash, and most people seem to think that this recurring pattern of speech alone makes him a racist. I don't know the man nor did I watch the show, but if all I had to go on were his most notorious words, I'd probably conclude the same thing. I will say however that I seem to recall reading that Imus dumped on a variety of folks, not just one or two racial groups. So his gig was more of an "equal opportunity attack dog" routine than is commonly perceived or allowed perhaps... Anyway... What the hell do I know? The topic is starting to wear a little thin for me at this point...

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 7:14 pm**

mnaz wrote:I think Deb and eyelidlessness are saying that Imus uses racial-type speech with sole, deliberate intent to degrade his targets, and therefore must be a racist bigot and his show must be specifically aimed at like-minded people, or people who wrongly tolerate this sort of speech, whereas other shockers such as Chappelle, Mencia, Silverman, etc., use objectionable racial speech in a more sohisticated way to mock or degrade the idea of such speech. That seems to be the gist of it.

I didn't think Deb and eyelidless were saying the same thing at all.

What I got from Deb's posts was that Deb thinks any fan of the Imus show must be a bigot because he uses racial humor.

What I got from eyelidlessOne's posts is that anybody who finds racial slurs which belittle a certain race to be funny is probably a bigot.

I DO understand the distinction eyelids was making between different types of racial humor.... humor to degrade targets and humor to point out how wrong racism is. I agree with that.

sighhh.... I donno. I'm not Deb and I'm not eyelidessone and certainly they can both speak for themselves but that's what I got from their posts.

I was talking to my sister on the phone about an hour ago and telling her about this thread. She told me she enjoyed the Imus show. She likes him. She said she never heard him use racial slurs at all until his recent trouble.

I never watched the show, myself. I have heard him a few times on the radio and seen a few clips on TV but never really watched or listened to his whole show so I can't judge the show.

I can tell you, though, that my sister is definitely NOT a racist and she said she enjoyed Imus so much she'd thought he'd be cool to hang out with.

Posted: **May 14th, 2007, 7:25 pm**

mtmynd wrote: Since we're on the subject, let's review two definitions as presented

Two points first... one, a dictionary is not a valid substitute for a rich, complex understanding of the language therein; one could read the OED for years and never become competent with the English language. Two, like most dictionary entries for disputed or heavily weighted social phenomena, these definitions are extremely broad and conservative.

In short, there is only one part of the two quoted passages I would accept as remotely representative of the social phenomenon of bigotry: "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion." I would probably omit "group" in favor of something like "coherent social group" (this would include, then, political orientation, but perhaps not "some random crowd in a theater without a common social character").

Sorry, dude... going by the socially acceptable definition of the word, bigotry, "intolerance" appears to be common place.

Socially acceptable according to… you.

If I read you correctly, you seem to be intolerant with other's viewpoints that differ from your own.

Well, I suppose you didn't read me correctly. What I'm intolerant of, actually, is oppression. That's not "irrational suspicion or hatred", it's a particularly rational intolerance.

One could surmise that you have an "irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group" that enjoyed viewing and participating in The Don Imus Show...

One could surmise that, by misreading and misquoting and misrepresenting what I said.

and I may add, you are among the most vociferous of those that never heard or saw his show.

Or at least that would be the case if I had said what you think I said.

Your irrationality towards those that enjoyed and/or participated in his show, you recklessly call, "at the very least, tolerant of bigotry."

It's very dishonest to take a quote out of context than claim it describes something it doesn't describe.

That by strictly recognized definition would indeed include you under the broad brush of bigotry. You are waving your colors of intolerance towards those that happened to enjoy watching or listening to the multi-faceted faces of this man's show.

Sure, if I had said about said listeners what you claim I did. But I didn't.

The subject we are discussing and laying our facts on the line for/against should not be a "guess" game but rather one that deals with facts based upon logic, definition and social acceptance.

Uh. The Don Imus issue might be dead serious to you, but I don't think its as dire as all that. But I digress, since what I "guessed" wasn't anything to do with the topic at hand, but an expression that I can't give you a concrete answer to your question unless you clarify it. Since you clarified it by explaining what you mean by "bigotry", and your definition includes "intolerance", yeah I'd guess that everyone is a "bigot"…

I mean, by your definition, a young girl whose parents abuse her would be "bigoted" if she were to cower when her father raises a hand at her. You know, because that's "intolerant"—that girl really should respect her father's point of view. I guess it was "bigoted" for the Soviets to militarily defeat the German invaders in World War II, because that's "intolerant"—the Soviets should have respected the Germans' point of view that the Russians are üntermenschen who deserve to be killed off.

Since you wouldn't agree, and then say nothing more on the subject, indicates that you are simply cutting short the comment/question I raised in the paragraph you quoted. No debate on your part, I assume? Is it really all cut and dry opinions on your part that I am supposed to bow down to and accept without question or doubt?

Accept what you want to accept. Your assertion is one that alludes to "human nature", which is a huge debate that is way outside the scope of this discussion. It's presumptuous to suggest that since I didn't write another diatribe about that particular subject I haven't got more to say. I don't agree that bigotry is human nature. But then, I don't even agree with your definition of bigotry, so where will we look for common ground?

You and those that are intolerant of words may not be silencing anyone but are doing your most vocal to silence those that are not as serious as you in your admission to stop or curtail how people express themselves.

Exactly how? I have said, over and over, that Don Imus can say whatever the hell he wants. I don't want to stop him. What more do you want?

Allow me to cut and paste said paragraph again, and I invite you to let it soak in a little before you jump to any conclusions -

Cecil repeats

I seriously am having difficulty parsing the meaning of your words. Please rephrase it or I can't respond to it.

IMHO, you and Deb are tossing the word 'bigot' around as if the word should never exists and should be eliminated from the vocabulary of not only the English speaking dictionaries but anyone's lexicon... as if that would bring to a screeching halt all 6 billion people's 'attitude, state of mind' towards intolerance.

I don't know what Deb is saying, and I am not really following the other thread, but I'm not her. And I'd appreciate it if you leave your baggage about her at the door if you want to have a discussion with me. You are already misrepresenting my views, misquoting and quoting out of context to imply that I've said things I haven't, and outright claiming I've said the opposite of what I've said; I don't need you demanding I explain someone else's views on top of that.

It far better to accept the reality and lighten up rather than be intolerant towards those that you freely label as 'bigots' in the most negative light. It does nothing for you or those you label.

Lighten up? I'm not the one who took people who laugh at bigoted humor are bigots as a personal attack. Oh, and… if you're so offended by my intolerance of bigotry, why don't you set an example, and tolerate it.

Posted: **May 15th, 2007, 1:59 am**

Interesting folks here on the studious eight, about free speech issue

I made an auto-erotic drawing of myself about 9 years ago (shortly before I met my future wife.) It was what one calls "fore-shortening", looking down at myself reclined out down the bed, with a hard-on (excuse me, an erection) but also my legs and feet and beyond that, a small altar with Buddha and incense. I called it "safe sex." It's lost in my file 13.

I don't believe that I could post it on photo-bucket. And if I were to post it on this joint, don't know if Doreen would feel threatened by it, not that she wouldn't find artistic value in it, it was a masterpiece, no pun intended, but I would be at risk to censure at photo-bucket if someone complained.

I would like t see Dave Chapelle do a comic impersonation of Don Imus.
But it is to me a matter of situational ethics. Imus said that his show was a "comedy" show. Yet as you all have noted, his show was in fact diverse and had an element of seriousness in it. What if his comment about the Rutgers women basketball team had been "bleeped?"

Was Sharpton's offense against Imus simply a publicity stunt? How can one really know this? It seems to me that is a personal opinion. Maybe there is an element of self-aggrandizement in opportunism of any kind, but is the motivation personal or beyond ones self toward a sincerity on some matter? How can we know for sure? Did Sharpton benefit from Imus' demise? I think that Sharpton caught some flack and public disdain from several quarters. Maybe he deserves some of this, but his gain was not much personally, no new major contracts, etc.

Someone who did benefit from Imus' demise was Hillary Clinton,after many incidences of being called "a phoney" by Iman, over and over, his special target for abuse. Hillary appeared via telephone on Coffee Joe, pos-Imaus, and elicited praise from all those present, including a black guy who previously voted for Bush Junior.
Did Hillary have Imus banned? Really? Did anyone political-celebratory individual do this to the Iman? I find it hard to believe this assertion.

and if free speech is an issue, then freedom of action is also an issue, the pursuit of happiness, the power of conscience. the courage to resist. and this applied to the corporate boards of MSNBC, who probably were inundated with opinions and how about the corporate sponsors? His wife's organic cleaning supplies biz may have been enough to sponsor, say, a drop of unintended spittle and did add some merit to his persona, but hey, there's something good about everyone.

I just do not believe that my freedom of speech is endangered by Imus' firing. To me this is like apples and oranges. I am not restricting Imus' speech, hell, let him rant on a street corner in Albuquerque about the Mescelaro Apaches in Cloudcroft, NM. He might get bleeped big time.
He was laughing all the way to the bank, ha ha ha..

Intolerance is as intolerance do.

Posted: **May 15th, 2007, 2:07 am**

doreen peri wrote:I didn't think Deb and eyelidless were saying the same thing at all.

What I got from Deb's posts was that Deb thinks any fan of the Imus show must be a bigot because he uses racial humor.

What I got from eyelidlessOne's posts is that anybody who finds racial slurs which belittle a certain race to be funny is probably a bigot.

I was looking for a common thread, which seems to be that they both determine Imus' occasionally disastrous forays into racial humor (and the show itself, by extension) to be unquestionably 100% bigoted/racist by design (as opposed to the "good" kind of racial humor) and thus is meant for and would appeal only to a like-minded audience. Others have said that Imus' overall life and career and various worthy causes, etc. suggest there might be much more than meets the eye (or ear).

It's an interesting study/discussion (for me, at least). The preponderance of unflinching, boundary pushing racial humor on major media of late is an eye opener. That, and the fact that this lame Imus blurt caused so much outright anger... Had to think about it. Maybe that was overdue. Or maybe I think too much sometimes...
Anyway...

Posted: **May 15th, 2007, 2:27 am**

I really wonder about Imus's sincerity at apologizing, that he would re-vamp his show.His pushing of boundaries, what should be done on various matters by anyone skilled at public conversation, was tainted by an obvious lack of respect for his chosen targets. He was adament about this, who he liked and who not. He lost his platform.
I personally am glad to see him go, and I watched the show, somehow hoping for a glimpse of insight, but always confused by his inconsistencies.

and am glad, cause if Imus can blurt out over and over again at what a phoney Hillary is, for instance, then, hey, he's fair game too. More than "somebody" evidently thought Iman was a phoney in his own right. So don't think Imus is an intentional bigot, just morally perplexed and knew what sold his show, til he fucked up one time too many.

It wll be interesting t see how his law suit against his bleeping contract will pan out. He can defend his position if he wants to,afterall it's a free country, but it is not simply a free speech issue to not have public and private censure on one's speech. An absolute freedom of speech and action would impair society, not uplift. It's the balance that the 1st amendment qualifies. Freedom of assembly does not constitute the freedom to riot or to incite riots for instance. The right to bear arms does not license one to shoot one's neighbor on personal impulse.

This is what aggravates me, sorry, simply stating that this is a freedom of speech issue. This misses the substance and quality of the faith in that freedom of speech to ensure the positive pursuit of personal will and protection from tyranny.

Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Ban (sorry, I meant Fire) 'em all, I say!