|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: SHOULD ROSIE O'DONNELL BE THE NEXT TO GET THE HEAVE-HO? |
 |
|
Should Rosie be the next to get the heave-ho? (pun intended)
Anybody recall her Chinese slur last December?
If not, here's a recap:
| Quote: |
The View co-host Rosie O'Donnell is in hot water for using the expression "ching chong" to describe Chinese people talking about Danny DeVito's drunken appearance on her show. "The fact is that it's news all over the world. That you know, you can imagine in China it's like: 'Ching chong � ching chong. Danny DeVito, ching chong, chong, chong, chong. Drunk. 'The View.' Ching chong," O'Donnell said on a Dec. 5 episode of "The View." The statement didn't sit well with John C. Liu, a New York City councilman, who fired off a letter to "View" co-host Barbara Walters. "The 'ching-chong' bit is not a trivial matter," Liu told FOXNews.com. "It really hits a raw nerve for many people in the community � many like myself, who grew up with these kinds of taunts. We all know that it never ends at the taunts." Liu isn't the only one offended. The Asian American Journalists Association called O'Donnell's comments a "mockery" that gives "the impression that [Asian Americans] are a group that is substandard to English-speaking people." Liu said his office has received complaints from around the New York area following the appearance. He directed his letter to Walters instead of O'Donnell because as producer of the show, he said, she ought to know better. "It's just stupidity, and it's stupidity that justifies a response," Liu said of O'Donnell's behavior, adding the comments came "from someone who has been indignant herself when it comes to comments made by other people where she has perceived it as being negative against a particular community." In November, O'Donnell made up with Kelly Ripa, co-host of "Live With Regis and Kelly," after accusing her of homophobia for pushing Clay Aiken's hand away from her mouth on the program. O'Donnell remains unfazed. "She's a comedian in addition to being a talk show co-host," Cindi Berger, O'Donnell's spokeswoman, said in a statement. "I certainly hope that one day they will be able to grasp her humor." On Dec. 8, O'Donnell wrote in her blog "it was not my intent to mock." She clarified her position on Dec. 10, calling the bit "comedy." "I do many accents and probably will continue to," she wrote. "My mom in law impression offends some southerners. What can u do? I come in peace." O'Donnell is not the first comedian to raise the ire of the Asian-American community. In 2001, Sarah Silverman told a joke on "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" that had the punch line "I love Chinks." The NBC program issued an apology to Guy Aoki, the president of the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, following Silverman's appearance.
Liu is still waiting for an apology for O'Donnell's comments. "I think an acknowledgement that it was a mistake would be very much appreciated by the community," he said. |
So does Rosie Posey get a pass because she meant well (and of course is a liberal) or should she get the same treatment as Imus?
And while we're at it, what about the other shock jocks? Is Howard Stern immune now that he's on Sirius?
How do you decide what the community standards are when there seem to be none that anyone can agree to?
Or is it all about clout? Blacks are good at rallying the troops when a white crosses over the line. If Chinese Americans had rallied against Rosie, would or should the outcome have been any different?
Obama comes out now taking offense at hip-hop music videos and lyrics but last year he courted Ludicrous, one of the most notorious of the foul-mouthed punks. Should he now be reproached for his pandering to the young black male constituency?
Or should we call for the dismissal of the white liberal executives at MSNBC and record companies who enable this sort of disgusting behavior?
Perhaps it just speaks to the general malaise, the anything-goes mentality that has spawned of bevy of shock jocks of all persuasions. What about Michael Savage and The Savage Nation?
What's your take on this trend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Agreed, but it ain't gonna happen. Fat dykes are a protected minority. They get a free pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not even in the same ball park.
And to show how dumb this thread is, there are FAR worse examples by Dennis miller, than what rosie said (for the record I don;t like her), and you claim to think Miller is funny and relevant.
Here's a link you may want to read.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010
I know this is a 'partisan' thing for you, but the fact is, those of your ilk say far worse things than those on the left. So you can keep going on your rants about things like this, or you could try not to come across as a conservative piece of crap and start calling out people of your own cloth (that would be the white sheet wearing variety).
A few examples, the first being perhaps the most relevant to this thread:
| Quote: |
Glenn Beck
* On the March 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" On the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" -- then added, "But she's so fat." |
| Quote: |
Neal Boortz
# On the March 31, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Boortz said that then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looks like a ghetto *beep*." Boortz was commenting on a March 29 incident in which McKinney allegedly struck a police officer at a Capitol Hill security checkpoint. Boortz said that McKinney's "new hair-do" makes her look "like a ghetto *beep*," like "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu." McKinney is the first African-American woman elected to Congress from Georgia. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lest we forget Ann Coulter and her musings |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What we are discussing here is suppressing those voices we dislike and find "offensive."
Demanding Imus's firing and lining up to defend Rosie represent par for the course among liberals on this McCarthyist-like issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a difference between McCarthyism and hate speech, and it's not a difficult distinction to make.
What Imus said was offensive, though I'm not sure/don't think it should have meant getting fired. A LARGE fine and a suspension I think would have been more appropriate.
Hate speech on the other hand is a different issue, and hate speech is what more often than not comes out of the conservative talk shows. Whether it be on muslims, gays, immigrants or against any other group, there's a lot to be said about what goes over the airwaves. preventing hate speech and misinformation is not McCarthyism. Banning people from speaking is, as is firing people in many circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freethought wrote: |
There's a difference between McCarthyism and hate speech, and it's not a difficult distinction to make.
What Imus said was offensive, though I'm not sure/don't think it should have meant getting fired. A LARGE fine and a suspension I think would have been more appropriate.
Hate speech on the other hand is a different issue, and hate speech is what more often than not comes out of the conservative talk shows. Whether it be on muslims, gays, immigrants or against any other group, there's a lot to be said about what goes over the airwaves. preventing hate speech and misinformation is not McCarthyism. Banning people from speaking is, as is firing people in many circumstances. |
I'm with freethought, Imus should of never been fired for what he said, offensive? yes, suspendable? you bet, fireable? no way.
What conservatives like Glen Beck, Savage, Coulter etc say is pure hate, there is no attempt at humor in what they say. What Imus did was an attempt (albeit very bad) at humor. Thats what he does. These other folks are use nothing but hate speech and the fear card to further the message of the far. Its also the same message the Sharpton and Jackson and their likes do on the left and they should be cut off too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
freethought spouted off:
| Quote: |
| And to show how dumb this thread is, there are FAR worse examples by Dennis miller, than what rosie said (for the record I don;t like her), and you claim to think Miller is funny and relevant. |
Do you know how to read? I mean, seriously, can you read closely? I mentioned Michael Savage. Is he a conservative? Ya think maybe?
Of course, we don't have to worry about Al Franken because he's too incompetent to stay on the air. But what about the mean-spirited liberal and sometime libertarian who goes by the name of Tom Leykis, with the widest listenership on the Pacific Coast?
And no mention of Howard Stern though I mentioned him?
So who's being partisan here, chump?
Try addressing the issues raised for a change.
hagwonguy:
| Quote: |
| What conservatives like Glen Beck, Savage, Coulter etc say is pure hate |
I've listened to all three and for more than a few minutes. Doubt you have. What you're saying is sheer hyperbole and maligns their motives while failing to address the issue I raised concerning censorship and community standards of decency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We can see that this is a slippery slope.
On the one hand, MSNBC is a private firm and none of us have the "right" to speak our mind on somebody else's property. But at the same time, canning this Imus dude establishes that it is acceptable to fire people for saying controversial things. Better that we call a spade a spade, and asshole and asshole and stupid ideas such, then start removing people for saying questionable things
Free speech wouldn't be hard if we were all polite. It is a principle designed to protect people who say controversial things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsyfish
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems to me that the marketplace should determine who stays on the air. If enough people dislike what Imus or Coulter or Frankin or Stern or Miller say they won't buy the products that sponsor their platforms for speech.
That's what happened in Imus' case; he became a financial liability for MSNBC and CBS, so they canned him. It's too bad that it was blowhards like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who led the charge against him. Neither has much credibilty with their histories of speech and behavior.
When I don't like the content of something, I turn it off. I've even participated in boycotts of products (after writing letters to the companies that made them) when I disagreed with the company policies or their representatives.
I say, as long as they are not advocating a crime (and I don't think that hate speech should be a crime), let them spew their hate and ignorance. Better to live in a country where people can be offensive out in public than to live in one where the hate is hidden.
Back in the '80, I asked a friend in the Israeli Defense Forces why they didn't send someone to Cairo and blow up the PLO office that was operating there. He answered that, first, it was illegal (though I didn't buy that was the real reason), and second, it was better knowing where the office was, rather than blowing it up and having them hide someplace else.
Imus' sacking may hurt his ego, but he's not going to starve. Hell, he's past retirement age anyway. Now he's a martyr to the pinheads who agree with what he said and probably one to people who feel more strongly about race issues - people who will twist this incident into something more than it is - companies fretting about the bottom line.
I'd shed no tears if Rosey O'Donnell were fired from her show - she's a loudmouth bully like most of the people who have these shows - but I wouldn't call for her sacking anymore than I would for Imus'. I just wouldn't watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD wrote:
| Quote: |
| Free speech wouldn't be hard if we were all polite. It is a principle designed to protect people who say controversial things. |
This gets at the crux of the problem, I'd say.
gypsyfish:
Market forces might be able to decide but then how does one protect the minority voices who can't afford good sponsorship? I lose no sleep over Imus--I'm sure he's got a big nest egg and, anyway, he knew the risks. Rosie is just plain stupid as Trump pointed out. She claims to have insight since she's a member of a minority group but as you say she bullies. She's not well read, either. In fact, no one on The View seems to be. It's a fluff show for those who read Vanity Fair and consider it serious journalism.
Of course, in the old days (except for Lenny Bruce and a few others), the media more or less policed itself. Decency and decorum in public at least were considered the norm. Now it's the lowest common denominator, which explains in part how the worst of the hip hop "artists" get so much air time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus, you really are desperate, troll (OP). A stereotype of a speaking style is a racial slur? Frigging idiot. If she had said, "The chinks... " then you'd have something.
The OP is a troll, and a foolish troll at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
We can see that this is a slippery slope.
On the one hand, MSNBC is a private firm and none of us have the "right" to speak our mind on somebody else's property. But at the same time, canning this Imus dude establishes that it is acceptable to fire people for saying controversial things. Better that we call a spade a spade, and *beep* and *beep* and stupid ideas such, then start removing people for saying questionable things
Free speech wouldn't be hard if we were all polite. It is a principle designed to protect people who say controversial things. |
This is an incorrect appraisal of the situation. Imus did not engage in free speech, he used a racial slur. Free speech has never covered speech intended to hurt others. It covers the right to state an opinion, which is another matter altogether. In fact, verbal assault is specifically on the books of many states/municipalities. Etc.
As others pointed out, your work space is not a place where you have a right to free speech, either. There is nothing about the situation that has to do with free speech.
What you think of his statements is your concern, but this isn't about free speech.
As for who should get the heave-ho: I've never understood what has kept Limbaugh or Coulter from being not only not listened to, but not fired and not sued.
jinju, the OP, and a few others could be right behind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAWINSEOUL
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Racial slurs can only be uttered by white men apparently. It burns me to see a-holes like Charles Barkley say �I hate White People� on National television and it goes unnoticed.
People are free to insult racially or in any manner they wish as long as the target is asian or white. So basically instead of using the term racially motivated remarks, it should be Anti-Afrocan American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Free speech has never covered speech intended to hurt others. |
You might want to review the literature on this matter. I don't get offended by much, but as a libertarian, the above makes me cringe. The USA has long allowed exceedingly controversial opinions to be aired under the idea of freedom of expression.
There is a movement towards speech "hate crimes" but these are strongly resisted by free speech advocates.
The debate commonly centers around yelling "Fire!" in a crowed theater, to use the most common example. This does not relate to that example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
