Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When do we as the reading, listening, watching public say no to derogatory language used by public persona? Or do we care? Everyone reading this knows what dirty words are, and has formed an opinion as to when it is appropriate to use. So here is a question:
Is it okay to call your daughter, mother, sister, or niece, a "ho", sl**, c**t, or other ugly descriptive words in public? If your family is not fair game who is? Perhaps Paris, Whoopi, Sarah, Hillary or a student over the age of 18? Who can do the name calling? Is it okay for your son, dad, brother or uncle, or maybe your minister to use derogatory words toward all females?
I personally don't think so, but here is the deal. Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Mahr are all guilty. Don Imus called female college students who'd just won a national championship, "Nappy headed ho's". Limbaugh is in a firestorm for calling a student who testified before Congress "A sl**." Bill Mahr took aim at Palin and called her "A c**t."
What's the difference? Is it the word, the speaker, or the circumstance? Don and Rush are hosts on public radio who took aim at defenseless female students. Bill Mahr is not a radio host. He is a comedian on HBO - a subscription cable show.
If you want to listen to Bill Mahr curse then you pay for the privilege. If you want to hear Rush curse turn on your radio. Ditto for Imus.
"What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?" Ask Rush; he said it.
I think it's about something bigger than words. It's just about decency and respect. Why is mistreating people, whether verbally, physically, emotionally, or mentally acceptable? It seems like humanity in general excuses mistreating people so often. Why is that? Are we all just projecting our inner fears? Where does the desire to put someone else down come from? Our own insecurity? Maybe we can get down to the root and go from there, because any word can be used as an insult, not just four-letter words. It's especially apparent in the media how much we see race, gender, religion, politics, and other shells, rather than the fact we're all human. Where does it start and where does it come from?
Some of those here aren't going to like my point, but the fact remains that a double standard exists when applied to conservatives vs. "Establisment Liberalism". That's why Fox news continues to be disparaged by the original three major networks, and why the smaller, but extremely-doctrinal MSNBC has found its niche.
I grew up at a time when the "one size fits all" mentality that dominated schools and other institutions was the rule, in an area dominated by unreconstructed agrarian conservatives. many of whom also harbored a thinly-veiled anti-Semitism; as far as feminists, gays and any similar minorities -- forget it. During my undergraduate years, I read people like Ayn Rand and Karl Hess and embraced the Libertarian philosophy at an early age. Still later, due largely to working in a field (transportation) where public-sector involvement could not be avoided, I lost a good deal of my stridency on economic issues. Outright racial/ethnic prejudice was already on the wane by then but the embrace of sincere diversity, led by the military and llarge enterprises, is taking care of a lot of the rest.
I believe that civility has been discarded in large part due to the emergence of Political Correctness, which represents nothing more than a new set of absolutes -- defined by self-appointed elite which merely sees anyone who formerly held high social rank (and that generally means mature white males) as a priveleged target -- hence the rise of Limbaugh, et al, and of a liberal reaction renamed as "progressive".
Ar this point, just about everything appears to be in a state of flux, and a lot of safety valves are tied down, Parliamentary democracy, which is a fairly new development in the broader scope of history and is still limited almost exclusively to western nations with a Judeo-Chrisitan heritage, is about to face another test. But we should have no trouble getting through it, if we make a serious effort to determine who is guided by a sense of foresight, and who's just looking for power. Beacuse as Lord Acton put it over a century ago, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-18-2012 at 09:55 PM..
Some of those here aren't going to like my point, but the fact remains that a double standard exists when applied to conservatives vs. "Establisment Liberalism". That's why Fox news continues to be disparaged by the original three major networks, and why the smaller, but extremely-doctrinal MSNBC has found its niche.
I believe that civility has been discarded in large part due to the emergence of Political Correctness, which represents nothing more than a new set of absolutes -- defined by self-appointed elite which merely sees anyone who formerly held high social rank (and that generally means mature white males) as a priveleged target -- hence the rise of Limbaugh, et al, and of a liberal reaction renamed as "progressive".
Ar this point, just about everything appears to be in a state of flux, and a lot of safety valves are tied down, Parliamentary democracy, which is a fairly new development in the broader scope of history and is still limited almost exclusively to western nations with a Judeo-Chrisitan heritage, is about to face another test. But we should have no trouble getting through it, if we make a serious effort to determine who is guided by a sense of foresight, and who's just looking for power. Beacuse as Lord Acton put it over a century ago, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This +1,000,000,000. Whenever I hear someone quote MSNBC or a Huffington Post commentary as constructive news I just shake my head since they are just as bad if not worse then fox news and redstate. Has anyone ever actually listened to Ed Schultz? The guy is freaking a lunatic that's just as bad if not worse Glenn Beck and always rants about him because he is not as popular as him and it obviously annoys him that is so. The reason for that is Schultz is annoyed that his propaganda isn't most wide spread propaganda isn't the most wide spread propaganda in politics.
You are also absolutely beyond correct also when it comes to political correctness because in the end its censorship imposed on by the elite to gain power and control others. Nothing more nothing less. Lord Acton was ahead of his time with that saying because its been proven over and over again.
I think most people don't even notice it anymore because it is so common. We cancelled cable 3 years ago and watch the old standbys from when we were children in the 60's and early 70's and we attempted to watch a few things online recently and were shocked at the language and negativity of most of the programs and segments we tried to watch. People have just become accustomed to it, the language and the attitude.
I agree a big double standard does exist, although I also think that there is a good reason for it. Nothing rubs people the wrong way like hypocrisy. Whether it is a moral conservative trolling for gay sex or Al Gore flying around in a personal jet,nothing offends social sensibilities more than saying one thing and doing another.
Many conservative personalities try to claim the moral high ground, painting liberals as vulgar, classless, and without morals. With this attitude, they will be judged by a higher standard of public opinion in their own behavior. Liberals get more of a pass on vulgarity because ACLU type liberals don't consider vulgarity particularly offensive in its own right, so they are not being hypocrites when they use offensive language.
Some people tend to see things as clearly defined, right vs wrong, black vs white, while other people take a more nuanced view. A nuanced view requires more mental agility and is more insightful, but in the current political climate it is considered weaker and less appealing to the masses. It is a shame that critical evaluation of the context of the remarks the OP brought up seems irrelevant in the face of the poorly understood yet easily manipulated 800 lb gorilla that is public opinion.
When do we as the reading, listening, watching public say no to derogatory language used by public persona?
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx
I personally don't think so, but here is the deal. Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Mahr are all guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx
Don and Rush are hosts on public radio who took aim at defenseless female students. Bill Mahr is not a radio host. He is a comedian on HBO - a subscription cable show.
If you want to listen to Bill Mahr curse then you pay for the privilege. If you want to hear Rush curse turn on your radio. Ditto for Imus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx
"What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?" Ask Rush; he said it.
Either we're against people talking negatively or we're not. In your first quote above, you question whether we publically accept verbal abuse/derogatory language, or not.
In your second quote above, you blame three personalities. But, in your third quote, you seemingly excuse the only liberal of the three by saying 1) you have to pay to see him; and, 2) he's a comedian.
Then, with your final quote, you take the final swipe at a conservative talker.
So, the question becomes are we really against conservative talkers who use abusive or derogatory language, and let the liberals slide? Or, are we really against all of it, regardless of who they are. Because Bill Mahr says many things that could fall in that genre both in and outside of his show.
I think keeping the politics out of it is extremely important. We can't (or shouldn't) make any excuses for ANYONE who uses those type of comments outside of a true comedy skit where there's no confusing political diatribe and comedic anecdote.
So, to your question - and treating ALL fairly, not singling out or making excuses for anyone, regardless of political affiliation or standing, I think we have to look at what is socially acceptable to answer it fully. Today's society is being forced to accept all forms of moral or ethical behavior regardless of how mainstream or fringe it may be. It's no reason that some people in show business have a hard time understanding what will or won't be deemed "acceptable" by their audience because the audience has to accept things they don't deem "acceptable" all the time.
Anything from class warfare, to sex warfare, to religious warfare, etc. Regardless of how out of mainstream it is, society as some point is being forced to accept it, but then being told that behavior "A" HAS to be accepted because otherwise it is being a "-phobe" or an "-ist" (homophobe, sexist, etc.), but behavior "B" is NOT acceptable because someone will be offended.
I think until we, as a society, get back to the concept that we have to have a general societal "norm" for majority in behaviors, we won't be able to stop things in the future from getting out of hand. It's becoming too complicated to say "I don't care if [this] offends you because it's their right to [whatever]" and then turn around and at the same time say "You can't say [this] because someone may find it offensive."
So, either we determine that (as a nation) we are going to go back to having a general moral compass that is defined and accepted by the majority, or we will try to "accept" everyone with all their "isms" as normal, and be shocked when some people don't know where the line is.
I disagree. I am not "blaming" anyone. Imes, Limbaugh and Mahr put their own feet in their own mouth.s I simply point out what was missed. Mahr is guy who is watched by subscribing to a paid cable channel. Your ten-year old daughter can turn on any radio and hear Limbaugh call her and other girls sl**s - another good ol' boys word for Don 'Ho' Imes classic description of black female athletes. What happens when the 10year old calls her teacher a sl** because she heard it on the radio? And of course we know a radio must be okay because we did not say no.
I say not to all of it and I don't pander to the politically correct; I don't have to.
I do not know who coined the praise 'moral compass' but it is ugly and suggestive and we've already discovered most politicians have no morals.
I disagree. I am not "blaming" anyone. Imes, Limbaugh and Mahr put their own feet in their own mouth.s I simply point out what was missed. Mahr is guy who is watched by subscribing to a paid cable channel.
Your ten-year old daughter can turn on any radio and hear Limbaugh call her and other girls sl**s - another good ol' boys word for Don 'Ho' Imes classic description of black female athletes.
Not being rude here but we can use the same scenario of a family having hbo and the father or mother turning the tv off and when the kid turns the tv on Mahr's show could be on with him calling Sarah Palin a "b****" on it. Then we have the internet which the same 10 year old can most likely just easily get on as they can turn on the radio and watch clips of Bill Mahr on his show making nasty statements about women. I really don't see any difference here.
I disagree. I am not "blaming" anyone. Imes, Limbaugh and Mahr put their own feet in their own mouth.s I simply point out what was missed. Mahr is guy who is watched by subscribing to a paid cable channel. Your ten-year old daughter can turn on any radio and hear Limbaugh call her and other girls sl**s - another good ol' boys word for Don 'Ho' Imes classic description of black female athletes. What happens when the 10year old calls her teacher a sl** because she heard it on the radio? And of course we know a radio must be okay because we did not say no.
I say not to all of it and I don't pander to the politically correct; I don't have to.
I do not know who coined the praise 'moral compass' but it is ugly and suggestive and we've already discovered most politicians have no morals.
Didn't meant to sound accusatory, I was just trying to point out how it can appear that people make excuses for some and not for others, and that those perceptions create the acceptability for certain actions in certain circles.
That's all. No offense meant, and I apologize if I did. My illustration was really that you could have stopped after mentioning all three names instead of going on with the points I quoted. I thought it would got to substantiate my logic of passive-aggressive acceptance in society for things one may or may not agree with.
You still seem to think it's okay, however, for people to use bad language as long as the audience for that type of vitriol pays for it, instead of getting it "free" over public transmission means. You don't mean that, do you?
I would hate to see a cable channel that one has to pay to receive start a KKK network. That crud they espouse is bad whether people pay for it or not.
It goes back to my main thought. It's either okay to say or not. If not, it doesn't matter if it's paid for or not. NO exceptions. It's NOT okay to pay for it. NO excuses. And, there are a LOT of parents who, if they were truly part of the solution, not the problem, would not pay for programming and not monitor what their kids watch (which we know happens all the time). So, I'm still not on board with the difference. Or am misunderstanding, again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
