NationStates Jolt Archive

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

I see you're using "talent" in the loosest sense of the word here.

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

They made a joke about the chinese changing l's and r's, so what? This same joke is portrayed in "A Christmas Story" every single winter and no one calls for it to be banned. Terrestrial radio will be dead soon and no one will want to listen to their bland lineups. Once XM and Sirus merge, if so, I'll upgrade there and be done with this nanny state crap. More of an issue needs to be made regarding our first amendment as we just seem to want to relinquish our rights. You do not have the right to avoid being offended, but you can avoid it by acting like an adult and changing those little knobs or buttons. Every group who can get people to mass email a station through chain emails now has the power to get anyone they want fired. This sucks and it should be fought.

At ths rate, I suspect that within a few years we are all going to end up sitting in uncomfortable wooden chairs staring at the floor all day for our entertainment. :(

talent

Talent? Calling up a Chinese restaurant to order "flied lice", swear at the staff, refer to her vagina as "hot, Asian, spicy" and spout racial slurs at her is "talent"? Calling a bisexual they had on the show "fag number 1", telling him his sexuality made him a "bitch" and asking him "How many badges of honour do you have in your colon?" is "talent"?

DCD, you have some very low standards on what you call "talent", indeed.

These two ungifted losers get no sympathy from me.

Honestly, I don't get it, unless they are losing ad revenue like the Imus debacle, at which point it makes sense if you are oging to lose money. As you said though, boycotts dont last and I bet that many other advertisers would have been happy to fill the spot of lost ads.

This has nothing to do with nanny state or first amendment rights though. The state had no part in this as far as I am aware.

Soon we'll actually be able to listen to music again...remeber those days?...remember music?

Soon we'll actually be able to listen to music again...remeber those days?...remember music?

I'm going to say music offends me so they'll have to broadcast time and temperature in between bouts of dead air.

I'm going to say music offends me so they'll have to broadcast time and temperature in between bouts of dead air.

Say whatever you want to say--that's not going to change any minds. You've got to hit them in the pocketbooks to make them act.

Seriously...... who?!

Sometimes they deserve it. Mark Hooney playing the beheading over and over and laughing about it was awful. I'm so angry they let that asshat back on Portland airwaves.:mad:

I finally gave radio the pink slip about ten years ago. I realized that if I really wanted ribald banter, meanspirited pranks and worthless trivia peppered with loud, enervating, wall-to-wall commercials (not to mention listening to tunes I don't get to choose myself), I could just go hang out in my older brother's basement for a while.

I don't see that brother too often...

Don't our amendments protect us from these kinds of things?

Or is that our ever so wonderful Patriot Act protecting us from terrorists...

Wait a second...

Don't our amendments protect us from these kinds of things?
No. You should make a greater effort to understand what the First Amendment does and doesn't cover.

How does the Patriot Act relate to shock jocks? First Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired by a business. You're employed by them, you follow their rules. 1st Amendment says government can't pass laws abridging free speech.

However, I still support private entities supporting the principle of free speech...

How does the Patriot Act relate to shock jocks? First Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired by a business. You're employed by them, you follow their rules. 1st Amendment says government can't pass laws abridging free speech.

However, I still support private entities supporting the principle of free speech...

(I was joking)

This is why I love XM radio, more options.

1st Amendment says government can't pass laws abridging free speech.


That makes the existence of censorship boards a direct contravention of the 1st Amendment doesn't it?

Talent? Calling up a Chinese restaurant to order "flied lice", swear at the staff, refer to her vagina as "hot, Asian, spicy" and spout racial slurs at her is "talent"? Calling a bisexual they had on the show "fag number 1", telling him his sexuality made him a "bitch" and asking him "How many badges of honour do you have in your colon?" is "talent"?

DCD, you have some very low standards on what you call "talent", indeed.

These two ungifted losers get no sympathy from me.

B-but what while loud obnoxious frat boys listen to while they get ready for a night of binge-drinking, gay bashing, and date rape?

B-but what while loud obnoxious frat boys listen to while they get ready for a night of binge-drinking, gay bashing, and date rape?
Surely they can just dig through the layer of discarded beer bottles and White Castle wrappers on their bedroom floors and find their old Sublime albums.

Surely they can just dig through the layer of discarded beer bottles and White Castle wrappers on their bedroom floors and find their old Sublime albums.

The casual nature of your suggestion belies your ignorance as to the level of difficulty required of such a feat. :D

The casual nature of your suggestion belies your ignorance as to the level of difficulty required of such a feat. :D
Yet another of the many things about which I am proud to be ignorant.

Excellent. Let's hope more follow.

These two ungifted losers get no sympathy from me.
I agree completely, but you can't just allow someone to be taken off the air every time it offends someone.
Excellent. Let's hope more follow.
I thought you were a social libertarian?

I was at a fast food place today and a TV in there had Fox News on and the bimbo presenting this story said "some consider this censorship." How could it possibly not be censorship? If you're for this, then you're for censorship. Period.

Shame on the station for caving in to the Red Chinese lobby. It's going to be 'Manchurian Candidate," all over again, minus Sinatra. :(

Shame on the station for caving in to the Red Chinese lobby. It's going to be 'Manchurian Candidate," all over again, minus Sinatra. :(

Or Denzel...

Or Denzel...

Were the Chinese involved in the sequel? Haven't seen it.

I think JV and Elvis are hilarious.
Don Imus is right.
Opie and Anthony are hilarious.

They are just shock jocks. Don't take them seriously. Stupid minorities.

If you're for this, then you're for censorship. Period.

Well, someone could conceivably oppose state censorship without opposing censorship on the basis of property rights and private association.

But that someone is not me. You're right. I have no problem with censoring bigoted filth, within certain limits.

They are just shock jocks. Don't take them seriously.

Bigotry isn't funny, and shouldn't be offered up as an excuse for entertainment.

But that someone is not me. You're right. I have no problem with censoring bigoted filth, within certain limits.
So only freedom for the speech you like, then? Real enlightened.

So only freedom for the speech you like, then?

I don't believe I said that.

Like virtually all "libertarian" absolutists (interestingly, a position you despise in other contexts), your argument is founded around a false dichotomy: all, or nothing. But those are not the only choices.

My standard is not and has never been "whether or not Soheran is in approval of the views being expressed", or even "whether or not Soheran respects the views being expressed."

The question for me is whether there is a worthy right to protect here. I see none. No one's human dignity is being threatened by the censorship in this case; we are not violating people's privacy or forcing them to watch every word they say (off the air), we are not executing anybody, we are not subjecting anyone to prison or torture or anything of the sort.

Nor does this sort of "speech" fall under the category of speech that should be protected to promote the free exchange of ideas. First, the motive here was not ideological expression; that is obvious. Second, the only ideas the action did convey were bigoted ones - ones that not only barely contribute to the free exchange of ideas and certainly do not contribute to the aim of a tolerant and pluralist society, but which actively serve to undermine it by delegitimizing and excluding some people.

I have a new radical idea on what to do the next time you hear something offensive on the radio. Now, it's radical, and not everyone is going to understand it or want to do it, but trust me it works. Ok, are you ready? Are you really really ready? Ok, here's what you do when you hear something you consider 'offensive', turn the dial. That's it.

the sad part is, it wasn't the original broadcast that did them in, but a re-broadcast.

The initial airing of the call went unnoticed, but a rebroadcast after Imus's firing prompted an outcry from Asian-American groups. Vandergrift and Lay were initially suspended without pay, but Asian-Americans quickly demanded the same penalty applied to the much higher-profile Imus. Guess stations now have to go through their recordings to weed out offensive material.

[QUOTE](interestingly, a position you despise in other contexts)
Not interesting at all. I oppose other forms of extremist because they are a threat to the maximum amount of liberty possible.
The question for me is whether there is a worthy right to protect here.
Speech is always a worthy right to protect. It is one of the most basic.
Nor does this sort of "speech" fall under the category of speech that should be protected to promote the free exchange of ideas. First, the motive here was not ideological expression; that is obvious.
So? Speech is speech. I'm sure people said the same thing about George Carlin,.
Second, the only ideas the action did convey were bigoted ones - ones that not only barely contribute to the free exchange of ideas and certainly do not contribute to the aim of a tolerant and pluralist society, but which actively serve to undermine it by delegitimizing and excluding some people.
It's either all okay to make fun of, or not of it is.

If they can get this taken off the air, what's to stop some Cristian organization from taking single mother off of television or conservatives ending criticisms of George Bush? Once you bow to one group, then you have to bow to every other to avoid discrimination.

I have a new radical idea on what to do the next time you hear something offensive on the radio. Now, it's radical, and not everyone is going to understand it or want to do it, but trust me it works. Ok, are you ready? Are you really really ready? Ok, here's what you do when you hear something you consider 'offensive', turn the dial. That's it.

as George Carlin once said.
"the radio has two knobs. one changes the station and the other *smacks head* turns the radio off! but I suppose that a minister will feel uncomfortable fiddling with anything that has TWO knobs."

as George Carlin once said.
"the radio has two knobs. one changes the station and the other *smacks head* turns the radio off! but I suppose that a minister will feel uncomfortable fiddling with anything that has TWO knobs."

I love George Carlin, I got hooked on him when he did the story telling of Thomas the Tank Engine.

I love how conservatives and libertarians go on and on about the power of the free market.

Except when the market does something they don't like.

I love how conservatives and libertarians go on and on about the power of the free market.

Except when the market does something they don't like.
Luckily, I'm neither. Besides, the free market had nothing to do with this. Just a bunch of people who don't understand postmodern comedy and who would have fizzled out in a week. This show's audience would not have been effected by their complaints. I imagine most of them don't give a shit about nearly anything at all.

Not interesting at all. I oppose other forms of extremist because they are a threat to the maximum amount of liberty possible.

Yes, right. So is this kind of absolutism. It is no different.

Speech is always a worthy right to protect. It is one of the most basic.

My right to say whatever bigoted things I want to my friend in private is a basic right worthy of protection.

But not all speech.

So? Speech is speech.

It's either all okay to make fun of, or not of it is.

If they can get this taken off the air, what's to stop some Cristian organization from taking single mother off of television or conservatives ending criticisms of George Bush? Once you bow to one group, then you have to bow to every other to avoid discrimination.

Yes... this is what absolutists must always resort to. You must always ignore the distinctions your opponents make, because otherwise the "all or nothing" framework that provides the basis for your opinion is fundamentally undermined.

If the government can force me to pay my workers a decent wage, what's to stop them from seizing my house on a whim, throwing me on the street, and starving me to death because it won't let me buy food? That's what happens when you undermine property rights. ;)

I gave my standard. I think I stated it pretty clearly, and if I didn't, ask me to clarify the unclear parts and I will. But I see no reason to respond in detail to slippery slope arguments.

More of an issue needs to be made regarding our first amendment as we just seem to want to relinquish our rights. You do not have the right to avoid being offended, but you can avoid it by acting like an adult and changing those little knobs or buttons. Every group who can get people to mass email a station through chain emails now has the power to get anyone they want fired. This sucks and it should be fought.

Yes, we must fight to protect our First Amendment rights by preventing people from contacting radio stations to complain!

Wait a minute, something about that doesn't sound right...

So only freedom for the speech you like, then? Real enlightened.

There is rather a large difference between freedom of speech and having a right to a radio program.

I love how conservatives and libertarians go on and on about the power of the free market.

Except when the market does something they don't like.

Having the DJs lose audience and ratings is effects of the Free Market, having them lose their job for doing their jobs is not.

Having the DJs lose audience and ratings is effects of the Free Market, having them lose their job for doing their jobs is not.

Gee, I missed the part where the government intervened and made the poor corporation fire the DJs against its interests.

Oh, snap.

having them lose their job for doing their jobs is not.

Um... yes, it is.

The private companies who hired them decided, of their own volition, to fire them. That's completely free market.

Indeed, it is one of the ways that free speech libertarians have traditionally argued offensive material should be handled: through the consequences of social disapproval rather than state censorship.

There is rather a large difference between freedom of speech and having a right to a radio program.

Is there? Is there really?

Yes, right. So is this kind of absolutism. It is no different.
The maximum amount of liberty possible could not possibly harm anyone.
Yes... this is what absolutists must always resort to. You must always ignore the distinctions your opponents make, because otherwise the "all or nothing" framework that provides the basis for your opinion is fundamentally undermined.
I recognize your distinctions, and I don't agree. Seemingly purposeless offensiveness can be its own point at times.
If the government can force me to pay my workers a decent wage, what's to stop them from seizing my house on a whim, throwing me on the street, and starving me to death because it won't let me buy food? That's what happens when you undermine property rights. ;)
We aren't talking about the government here, but even if we were you'd have a point. There isn't really anything to stop all that. We live a very tenuous existence under the control of very cruel men.

I agree completely, but you can't just allow someone to be taken off the air every time it offends someone.

I thought you were a social libertarian?

I was at a fast food place today and a TV in there had Fox News on and the bimbo presenting this story said "some consider this censorship." How could it possibly not be censorship? If you're for this, then you're for censorship. Period.

How is applauding a business taking advantage of its right to employ who they choose, Specially choosing not to employ people who would embarrass them or cost them money against social libertarianism?

Having the DJs lose audience and ratings is effects of the Free Market, having them lose their job for doing their jobs is not.

How is it not an effect of a free market?

Is not part of the idea of a free market the ability for them to employ at will?

How is it not an effect of a free market?

Is not part of the idea of a free market the ability for them to employ at will?

Yes, but they are shock jockies, they were hired to be shocking, I mean jeez if they were going to get fired for being too shocking, then how stupid is that?

Gee, I missed the part where the government intervened and made the poor corporation fire the DJs against its interests.

Oh, snap.
This isn't about the government.
Indeed, it is one of the ways that free speech libertarians have traditionally argued offensive material should be handled: through the consequences of social disapproval rather than state censorship.
Some free speech libertarians don't think offensive speech should be handled at all.
How is applauding a business taking advantage of its right to employ who they choose, Specially choosing not to employ people who would embarrass them or cost them money against social libertarianism?
As I said, the station would not have lost any of their mouth-breathing fan base due to this.

Yes, but they are shock jockies, they were hired to be shocking, I mean jeez if they were going to get fired for being too shocking, then how stupid is that?
Does this Asian-American group not understand that the whole purpose of those two was to say things that people would be shocked and offended at?

Does this Asian-American group not understand that the whole purpose of those two was to say things that people would be shocked and offended at?

Apparently not.

This isn't about the government.

Some free speech libertarians don't think offensive speech should be handled at all.

As I said, the station would not have lost any of their mouth-breathing fan base due to this.

If they thought it had no impact on their business why did they remove them?

If they thought it had no impact on their business why did they remove them?
Because that's just what you do at this point. They're cowardly and far too cautious.

Yes, but they are shock jockies, they were hired to be shocking, I mean jeez if they were going to get fired for being too shocking, then how stupid is that?

And they were let know how distasteful that humor was by the objects of their "humor"
So?

The maximum amount of liberty possible could not possibly harm anyone.

Well, that obviously depends on what you mean by "liberty."

But you misunderstood me. I meant that free speech absolutism is a threat to the maximum amount of liberty possible, not that the maximum amount of liberty possible is harmful.

Seemingly purposeless offensiveness can be its own point at times.

My problem is not that it is "offensive." My problem is that it is harmful - bigotry serves to legitimize subordination and undermine the full participation of the targets in society.

We aren't talking about the government here,

No. It was an analogy referencing another form of absolutism.

There isn't really anything to stop all that.

That's not true, but I'd rather not argue about it.

Some free speech libertarians don't think offensive speech should be handled at all.

So would you be okay with, say, gay teenagers being subjected to constant hate speech from their peers at school?

How far are you willing to extend this doctrine?

Does this Asian-American group not understand that the whole purpose of those two was to say things that people would be shocked and offended at?

I doubt they care. I don't see why they should.

Because that's just what you do at this point.

WHY?

My problem is not that it is "offensive." My problem is that it is harmful - bigotry serves to legitimize subordination and undermine the full participation of the targets in society.
No one takes it seriously, and if they do, their participation in that speech is a symptom of a far greater societal ill.

No one takes it seriously

So?

The notion that bigoted treatment of people can be casual and humorous is hardly any better.

Because that's just what you do at this point. They're cowardly and far too cautious.

So your mad at the company for being cautious with its source of income?

Seems like a rather silly thing to be mad at them for, thats what companies do ... maximize income minimize un-unnecessary risk

People say that this sort of thing is a mockery of racism.

I don't think so. To me, it seems more like a racist mockery of anti-racism, and of the shock and offense people justifiably have towards racist rhetoric.

There has been a slightly ridiculous but unaddressed notion here, and that's the nature of the groups complaining.

Groups focused on the issues of Asian Americans have a vested interest in addressing things like this. It's not just a matter of them turning the dial if they don't like it, but that they have to answer negative portrayals and stereotypes of Asian Americans. It's not, as some of the more ridiculous suggestions seem to believe, that Asian American groups where hoping to be able to listen to these two nitwits and then, "Oh my god, they're making fun of us!" They are addressing negative stereotyping. For them it is not okay, and it is important that they don't let something like this be normalized.

And yes, they're doing it in the proper manner. They aren't campaigning the government to make such things forbidden, but pressuring consumers to let broadcasters know that if you want to say something stupid, you're going to have to find someone else to pay for it.

So?

The notion that bigoted treatment of people can be casual and humorous is hardly any better.
The fact that we can laugh at shows how far we've come. The very notion that anyone could be serious about racism is so ridiculous it's funny. That's how the thought process goes anyway.
So your mad at the company for being cautious with its source of income?

Seems like a rather silly thing to be mad at them for, thats what companies do ... maximize income minimize un-unnecessary risk
You'll find I'm mad at companies quite frequently for decisions that maximize income and minimize risk.

There has been a slightly ridiculous but unaddressed notion here, and that's the nature of the groups complaining.

Groups focused on the issues of Asian Americans have a vested interest in addressing things like this. It's not just a matter of them turning the dial if they don't like it, but that they have to answer negative portrayals and stereotypes of Asian Americans. It's not, as some of the more ridiculous suggestions seem to believe, that Asian American groups where hoping to be able to listen to these two nitwits and then, "Oh my god, they're making fun of us!" They are addressing negative stereotyping. For them it is not okay, and it is important that they don't let something like this be normalized.

And yes, they're doing it in the proper manner. They aren't campaigning the government to make such things forbidden, but pressuring consumers to let broadcasters know that if you want to say something stupid, you're going to have to find someone else to pay for it.
I agree

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, these two shock jocks used their freedom of speech and now they have to deal with other people using theirs in response

The fact that we can laugh at shows how far we've come. The very notion that anyone could be serious about racism is so ridiculous it's funny. That's how the thought process goes anyway.

You'll find I'm mad at companies quite frequently for decisions that maximize income and minimize risk.

Yeah well it is something we have to deal with and personally I am not all that mad that they made the decision they did make

And personally I am perfectly happy with thoes that Liked this show to voice their opinions and maybe change the mind of the radio station in their own right.

The fact that we can laugh at shows how far we've come.

No, it doesn't.

People have been laughing at racism forever. Indeed, humor is a fairly typical component of racism - it reduces the object of racism to someone whose interests and needs don't matter, someone who's there to be laughed at.

In this case, the very real harm of racism is neglected in favor of "look at how funny it is to break the social taboos the stupid politically correct anti-racists have constructed!"

That kind of attitude is almost necessarily founded on the view that the harm to the victims doesn't matter. They aren't heard. They are irrelevant. If they were taken into account, this would not be seen as a humorous matter, but a very serious one - because it is.

If they were taken into account, this would not be seen as a humorous matter, but a very serious one - because it is.
Yeah, all right. :p

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/a/e/4/ae432adfd898c0d2ebbe9a98ce46320d.jpg

Racism is funny

Also notable on the part of the defenders of these "shock jocks" is the lack of attention they pay to the fact that representatives of the target groups consistently condemn allegedly non-racist "humor" of this sort.

If in truth it is inconsequential, why would that be the case? Are minorities just too stupid to appreciate the beauty of racist humor? Or do they just not matter?

Yeah, all right.:rolleyes:

Yeah, okay. Go on thinking that racist speech and its harmful effects is to be laughed at. I'll go on thinking that the perception of it as such is necessarily racist, and indicative of our continued incapability to solve the race problem in our society.

At ths rate, I suspect that within a few years we are all going to end up sitting in uncomfortable wooden chairs staring at the floor all day for our entertainment. :(Jesus! You'd think that people can't think up their own idiotic racist jokes:rolleyes:

Also notable on the part of the defenders of these "shock jocks" is the lack of attention they pay to the fact that representatives of the target groups consistently condemn allegedly non-racist "humor" of this sort.

If in truth it is inconsequential, why would that be the case? Are minorities just too stupid to appreciate the beauty of racist humor? Or do they just not matter?
Dave Chappelle.

I think JV and Elvis are hilarious.
Don Imus is right.
Opie and Anthony are hilarious.

They are just shock jocks. Don't take them seriously. Stupid minorities.
Until that bolded bit, you simply lacked taste. So why'd you have to descend completely into stupidity?

Dave Chappelle.

Well, first, Dave Chappelle has expressed some regrets, and his actions have hardly garnered universal approval from the Black community.

Second, unlike racist jokes like the ones these "shock jocks" made, or Don Imus made, Chappelle tended (or at least intended) not to get laughs from shock or from the acceptance of racist stereotypes, but from the absurdity of the stereotypes.

That's laughing at racists, and it's a good thing. It's also qualitatively different from laughing at anti-racists, at the social taboos and the shock and offense those taboos inspire, and trivializing the harm racism does - or from humor that is based on the audience's acceptance of the legitimacy of racist stereotypes.

Well, first, Dave Chappelle has expressed some regrets, and his actions have hardly garnered universal approval from the Black community.

Second, unlike racist jokes like the ones these "shock jocks" made, or Don Imus made, Chappelle tended (or at least intended) not to get laughs from shock or from the acceptance of racist stereotypes, but from the absurdity of the stereotypes.

That's laughing at racists, and it's a good thing. It's also qualitatively different from laughing at anti-racists, at the social taboos and the shock and offense those taboos inspire, and trivializing the harm racism does - or from humor that is based on the audience's acceptance of the legitimacy of racist stereotypes.
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/mohammed%20cartoon%20danish.jpeg

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/mohammed%20cartoon%20danish.jpeg

Oh great, now they'll have rallies holding signs that says "Prepare for another 9/11" and "The next Holocaust is around the corner", and they'll burn down another embassies, just to show that they're not violent. :rolleyes: Nice going Neo Undelia.

*snip*

Is that honestly the best you can do? :rolleyes:

All of this is upsetting the manatees. :(

*vague South Park reference*

The two part Family Guy espisode where FOX censored Muhammad because they thought the Muslim would be offended lol, that was great.

All of this is upsetting the manatees. :(

*vague South Park reference*

Is that honestly the best you can do? :rolleyes:
No.

Does this Asian-American group not understand that the whole purpose of those two was to say things that people would be shocked and offended at?

Did those two shock jocks not understand that Asian-American groups might find what they were saying offensive and try to get their sponsors to cut them loose? This shit runs both ways, after all.

Ah, the free market undergoes another self-correction. It's quite normal. :)

Did those two shock jocks not understand that Asian-American groups might find what they were saying offensive and try to get their sponsors to cut them loose? This shit runs both ways, after all.
As has been repeatedly stated, those groups could have simply not listened if they didn't want to be offended.

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

So two racist idiots got fired, so what?

As has been repeatedly stated, those groups could have simply not listened if they didn't want to be offended.

Sure--they could have. And the shock jocks could just as easily not said what they did. If Asian Americans are trying to break down stereotypes, who am I to tell them to not get offended when some dumb ass radio jock says something stupid?

As has been repeatedly stated, those groups could have simply not listened if they didn't want to be offended.

Sooo what you're saying is that they should have let these two spread their racist bullshit and shouldn't have protested this racist bullshit whatsoever?

What about the 1st amendment, they are allowed to show their frustration at those two's bigotry.

In the end it was the guys who ran the station that decided who got fired, not the Asian-American groups. The people who ran things obviously saw that what these two did was tasteless, racist, and could cause trouble, so they fired them.

So two racist idiots got fired, so what?

Engaging in a stereotype-oriented skit or role-play doesn't necessarily make one a racist, remember. After all, no one would call screen legend Marlon Brando a racist simply for his role as a Chinese in "Tea House of the August Moon!" Granted, this may be low-brow, and a firable offense, but let's not call it racist out of hand. ;)

The two part Family Guy espisode where FOX censored Muhammad because they thought the Muslim would be offended lol, that was great.

ANd remarkably on point with this conversation. *nod*

Sure--they could have. And the shock jocks could just as easily not said what they did. If Asian Americans are trying to break down stereotypes, who am I to tell them to not get offended when some dumb ass radio jock says something stupid?

You can have whatever opinion of anyone's actions that you want to by virtue of being a thinking being. I think they need to get thicker skin. You for some reason that I'm sure you feel is right think they're justified in what I feel is mostly false indignation. Like anything we discuss here, it doesn't really matter, and your question gets right to the heart of that.

As has been repeatedly stated, those groups could have simply not listened if they didn't want to be offended.
This cartoonish and simple minded notion has already been answered.
There has been a slightly ridiculous but unaddressed notion here, and that's the nature of the groups complaining.

Groups focused on the issues of Asian Americans have a vested interest in addressing things like this. It's not just a matter of them turning the dial if they don't like it, but that they have to answer negative portrayals and stereotypes of Asian Americans. It's not, as some of the more ridiculous suggestions seem to believe, that Asian American groups where hoping to be able to listen to these two nitwits and then, "Oh my god, they're making fun of us!" They are addressing negative stereotyping. For them it is not okay, and it is important that they don't let something like this be normalized.

And yes, they're doing it in the proper manner. They aren't campaigning the government to make such things forbidden, but pressuring consumers to let broadcasters know that if you want to say something stupid, you're going to have to find someone else to pay for it.

ANd remarkably on point with this conversation. *nod*

So very true. *gives a slice of cheese cake*

You don't have a right to not be offended, do you realize how many handicaps/disable jokes I hear in a day, several, and what do I do? Eh I just laugh about it and make some jokes of my own. Hey if you can't laugh at yourself.

You can have whatever opinion of anyone's actions that you want to by virtue of being a thinking being. I think they need to get thicker skin. You for some reason that I'm sure you feel is right think they're justified in what I feel is mostly false indignation. Like anything we discuss here, it doesn't really matter, and your question gets right to the heart of that.

Here's the thing. I'm a very nearly middle-aged white male in the United States. It's hard to find a less oppressed group than the one I belong to in the entire world, so I find it a bit intellectually dishonest for me, of all people, to tell members of groups which have been historically discriminated against by my group in my country that they just need to get over it and grow a thicker skin. What do I know about the way they feel when their ethnic stereotypes are abused in such a way? Empathy can take me only so far, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

You can have whatever opinion of anyone's actions that you want to by virtue of being a thinking being. I think they need to get thicker skin. You for some reason that I'm sure you feel is right think they're justified in what I feel is mostly false indignation. Like anything we discuss here, it doesn't really matter, and your question gets right to the heart of that.

And you can also protest someone else's opinion if you want to. It wasn't like the Asian American Groups censored the two, they just protested them.

Those two's taskmasters censored them.

Leave the asian-american group out of this.

Leave the asian-american group out of this.

Weren't they instrumental in the firings? If not, that would differ from most accounts of the events, to say the least!

Empathy can take me only so far, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.
That's never been a problem for me. Of course, I could just be an ass who thinks far too highly of his intuitive abilities, but I don't like to think so.

That's never been a problem for me.

If you don't understand why this sort of thing is hurtful and offensive... yes, it is.

And you can also protest someone else's opinion if you want to. It wasn't like the Asian American Groups censored the two, they just protested them.

Those two's taskmasters censored them.

Leave the asian-american group out of this.
You do have a point. In the end, I'm far more angry at the station for caving to the group that at the group itself.

Weren't they instrumental in the firings? If not, that would differ from most accounts of the events, to say the least!

Sure, they were, but all they did was excersise their right to protest.

The taskmasters of the Dj's pulled the plug on their program.

If you're going to complain about someone, complain about the people who decided to fire the two Dj's, not the people who simply excersised their right and brought attention to the problem.

If you don't understand why this sort of thing is hurtful and offensive... yes, it is.

and if two DJs were making fun of whites in a racist sort of ways, calling us crackers and honkies, would that be hurtful and offensive, or would that be ok because we weren't oppressed?

and if two DJs were making fun of whites in a racist sort of ways, calling us crackers and honkies, would that be hurtful and offensive, or would that be ok because we weren't oppressed?

Speaking for myself, yeah, it would be okay for precisely that reason. As a white male in the US, I have far fewer stereotypes to break down than any other group, and even those I do have--a southern accent, for example--are minor in comparison to my advantages. But when you are a member of a group that can point to a history of oppression and can point to continued stereotypical treatment today, then there's a difference. It's a matter of severity in the situation.

would that be hurtful and offensive

Possibly. But the social context is very different, because whites are the dominant group, and have a dominant influence on the culture.

and if two DJs were making fun of whites in a racist sort of ways, calling us crackers and honkies, would that be hurtful and offensive, or would that be ok because we weren't oppressed?

It wouldn't be okay, and I would urge you to protest these two Djs until they were punished in someway.

With that said, these asian american groups should be able to do the same.

Making fun of whites = Ok
Making fun of Minorities = Not Ok.

Ok, so the standard Double Standard, gotcha. *writes it down, then throws it away*

Ok, so the standard Double Standard, gotcha.

You can't really be this stupid.

There is a SINGLE standard. You're just ignoring it.

If you don't understand why this sort of thing is hurtful and offensive... yes, it is.
Meh. I've known Asians to laugh at that sort of thing in the past.

Making fun of whites = Ok
Making fun of Minorities = Not Ok.

Ok, so the standard Double Standard, gotcha. *writes it down, then throws it away*

Seriously--you're white, right? If someone refers to you as a honky, does it hurt your job prospects any? Does it affect the way you are perceived by the general public? Now compare that to the use of the word ******, and tell me it's all the same.

Meh. I've known Asians to laugh at that sort of thing in the past.

So?

You can laugh at things you find offensive and hurtful (indeed, often it's much better than the alternatives), and the fact that some Asians do not find it offensive and hurtful does not mean that there is not good reason for other Asians to.

Making fun of whites = Ok
Making fun of Minorities = Not Ok.

Ok, so the standard Double Standard, gotcha. *writes it down, then throws it away*

That is ENOUGH...I am tired of your 'oh, pitty the poor defenseless white people' bullshit.

If you can point out two Djs who did this, then by all means you should protest and boycott them until they are punished in some severe way.

Until then, stop attacking people for excersising their right to protest racist & bigoted bullshit.

You can't really be this stupid.

There is a SINGLE standard. You're just ignoring it.

No, I just believe that you can't exclude anyone from being made fun of just because something bad happened to them in the past, either all groups get their fair share of shots, or none of them do. You can't have it both ways.

Speaking for myself, yeah, it would be okay for precisely that reason. As a white male in the US, I have far fewer stereotypes to break down than any other group, and even those I do have--a southern accent, for example--are minor in comparison to my advantages. But when you are a member of a group that can point to a history of oppression and can point to continued stereotypical treatment today, then there's a difference. It's a matter of severity in the situation.

Also, when you're under-represented, each representation carries more weight, and when within that set of representation is also disproportionate towards a particular stereotype even more so.

For every negative stereotype you can find of a white guy you can find hundreds of counter-examples. That isn't the case with the under-represented, so it is in fact a matter of scale.

Also, when you're under-represented, each representation carries more weight, and when within that set of representation is also disproportionate towards a particular stereotype even more so.

For every negative stereotype you can find of a white guy you can find hundreds of counter-examples. That isn't the case with the under-represented, so it is in fact a matter of scale.

Exactly. If I were a white guy living in China, I might have a different perspective on things, as I would be a member of a stereotyped minority, and I assume I'd be treated as such. The closest I've ever come was going to a majority black elementary school for a year (5th grade) and my junior high was pretty close to it, but even then, I had the rest of the community that was majority white, so it wasn't the same.

Here's the thing. I'm a very nearly middle-aged white male in the United States. It's hard to find a less oppressed group than the one I belong to in the entire world, so I find it a bit intellectually dishonest for me, of all people, to tell members of groups which have been historically discriminated against by my group in my country that they just need to get over it and grow a thicker skin. What do I know about the way they feel when their ethnic stereotypes are abused in such a way? Empathy can take me only so far, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't suffer from that problem.

I'm an ethnic and genetic mongrel. My mother is Puerto Rican and my father is white(Scottish ancestry). I have enough Taino Indian ancestry in me that if they were a federally recognized tribe, I'd be a member of it. But they aren't a federally recognized tribe. Why not? Because they were decimated long before there WAS a United States. Most of the rest of the damage was done before Puerto Rico was a territory of the U.S.

There are no more full-blooded Taino left. They're gone. And unlike most native americans, there is no legal recourse for grievances. They're fucked.

That being said, I have some understanding of cultural sensitivity. If you honestly feel that as a middle-aged white guy that you don't have the ability to fully empathize with stereotyping ethnicities(which I doubt), I certainly DO have that ability.

Personally, I think it's the ultimate in racial and ethnic prejudice to believe that any group of people need or deserve special sensitivity to their race or ethnicity. To put it simply, if you can't make fun of someone, then you can't make fun of anyone.

I don't suffer from that problem.

I'm an ethnic and genetic mongrel. My mother is Puerto Rican and my father is white(Scottish ancestry). I have enough Taino Indian ancestry in me that if they were a federally recognized tribe, I'd be a member of it. But they aren't a federally recognized tribe. Why not? Because they were decimated long before there WAS a United States. Most of the rest of the damage was done before Puerto Rico was a territory of the U.S.

There are no more full-blooded Taino left. They're gone. And unlike most native americans, there is no legal recourse for grievances. They're fucked.

That being said, I have some understanding of cultural sensitivity. If you honestly feel that as a middle-aged white guy that you don't have the ability to fully empathize with stereotyping ethnicities(which I doubt), I certainly DO have that ability.

Personally, I think it's the ultimate in racial and ethnic prejudice to believe that any group of people need or deserve special sensitivity to their race or ethnicity. To put it simply, if you can't make fun of someone, then you can't make fun of anyone.

But why make fun of them for their ethnicity, when there are so many better (in my opinion) options for comedy? It's a cheap way out for a laugh.

Seriously--you're white, right? If someone refers to you as a honky, does it hurt your job prospects any? Does it affect the way you are perceived by the general public? Now compare that to the use of the word ******, and tell me it's all the same.

I'll say it. It's all the same.

I just believe that you can't exclude anyone from being made fun of just because something bad happened to them in the past

Like I said, the relevant element is the SOCIAL CONTEXT.

The significance and interpretation of language, especially as regards matters as complex as race (or gender), depends very much on that context.

In a society where Whites are socially and culturally dominant, racist jokes against Whites will always have a very different significance from racist jokes against Blacks, Asians, Latinos, or other non-white ethnic groups.

Seriously--you're white, right? If someone refers to you as a honky, does it hurt your job prospects any? Does it affect the way you are perceived by the general public? Now compare that to the use of the word ******, and tell me it's all the same.

Yes I am white, and if someone calls me honkey, well, needless to say I'd figure that if they can dish it out, then they should be able to take it as well. While I may not call them a racist name, I will use other means to attack, because I hold myself up to a higher standards. As for how the general public precieves me, quite frankly from what I've seen, the minorities are being coddled while whites are considered fair game, simply because they were the 'oppressed' and we were the 'oppressor'. I hate this PC bullshit, I hate it with a passion. Now I'm not going to join the KKK or the Neo Nazi, but I'm sure as hell am going to laugh at a black joke, a Hispanic joke, an asian joke, and yes a white joke. Why, because they are fucking funny. That why I love Blazing Saddles, and I love watching Carlos Mencia and Dave Chappell.

So in short, get your fucking panties out of a fucking knot and realize that it's just a joke and if you can't take a joke, then you need to re-evaluate your sense of humor.

Everyone should be fair game in the arena of being the butts of jokes, everyone.

Seriously, I'm not angry that people are defending racist & bigoted stuff...That just annoys me...

I'm pissed off at the fact that people seem to be able to cry and whine about the two Djs right to free speech, and in the same sentence try to take away the asian american group's right to protest that speech.

I'm pissed off that as soon as someone protest racist & bigoted rhetoric, you have a large number of white guys crying about how there is a double standard...

There is no double standard here: Two white Djs decided to do a bigoted skit, some asian american groups complained about it, and the guys who run the station decided to fire them. Big Deal. Get Over It.

Yes I am white, and if someone calls me honkey, well, needless to say I'd figure that if they can dish it out, then they should be able to take it as well. While I may not call them a racist name, I will use other means to attack, because I hold myself up to a higher standards. As for how the general public precieves me, quite frankly from what I've seen, the minorities are being coddled while whites are considered fair game, simply because they were the 'oppressed' and we were the 'oppressor'. I hate this PC bullshit, I hate it with a passion. Now I'm not going to join the KKK or the Neo Nazi, but I'm sure as hell am going to laugh at a black joke, a Hispanic joke, an asian joke, and yes a white joke. Why, because they are fucking funny. That why I love Blazing Saddles, and I love watching Carlos Mencia and Dave Chappell.

So in short, get your fucking panties out of a fucking knot and realize that it's just a joke and if you can't take a joke, then you need to re-evaluate your sense of humor.

Everyone should be fair game in the arena of being the butts of jokes, everyone.

For starters, you're comparing apples and oranges here. You're talking about people calling each other names on an individual basis, and the discussion in the thread is about larger stereotypical comments being broadcast. Not the same--if an individual says something to you personally, then you are certainly able to respond in kind.

Secondly, why use the past tense when you're talking about the oppressors and the oppressed? You're not really going to go into that whole "minorities have it easier than white people" line here, are you? Because The Cat-Tribe's got a whole thread devoted to that--you might want to check it out if you haven't already.

Third, if you think the point of Blazing Saddles was to normalize racist jokes, you walked away from that film with exactly the opposite intent Mel Brooks went into it with. The racists are the idiots, in case you didn't notice.

But why make fun of them for their ethnicity, when there are so many better (in my opinion) options for comedy? It's a cheap way out for a laugh.

Indubitably.

I certainly don't object to a couple nimrod DJs being fired. What I object to is the unbalanced and unchecked power that small groups of vocal people have in this country, both officially(by complaining to the FCC) and unofficially(By making a media event of themselves), to control what I myself choose to see and hear. They don't have the right. My remote, radio dials and money speak plenty loud enough for me. *nod*

Personally, I think it's the ultimate in racial and ethnic prejudice to believe that any group of people need or deserve special sensitivity to their race or ethnicity.

No "special sensitivity to their race or ethnicity" is necessary to see the point.

In the abstract, there's obviously no difference. But humor does not occur in the abstract. It occurs in the real world, where there is a real race problem, and a real dominance of society by one particular ethnic group.

It doesn't matter what ethnic group that dominant group is. There is no element of "special sensitivity" here. Regardless, jokes targeted at that group will have a very different social significance than ones targeted at marginalized groups.

There is no double standard here: Two white Djs decided to do a bigoted skit, some asian american groups complained about it, and the guys who run the station decided to fire them. Big Deal. Get Over It.

I'm sure everyone agrees that the station is within its rights in firing the djs if it believes consumers (such as the Chinese advocacy group) are turned off by ethnic humor. However, not all ethnic humor skits are bigotted or demeaning. It's never good to be so hasty.

For starters, you're comparing apples and oranges here. You're talking about people calling each other names on an individual basis, and the discussion in the thread is about larger stereotypical comments being broadcast. Not the same--if an individual says something to you personally, then you are certainly able to respond in kind.

Secondly, why use the past tense when you're talking about the oppressors and the oppressed? You're not really going to go into that whole "minorities have it easier than white people" line here, are you? Because The Cat-Tribe's got a whole thread devoted to that--you might want to check it out if you haven't already.

Third, if you think the point of Blazing Saddles was to normalize racist jokes, you walked away from that film with exactly the opposite intent Mel Brooks went into it with. The racists are the idiots, in case you didn't notice.

Ugh, ok, I'm going to bottom line this.

In keeping with the spirit of Blazing Saddles, a film in which EVERYONE got made fun of, I believe this is how comedy should be performed today, everyone should have a chance to be made fun of.

Are we clear now?

Seriously, I'm not angry that people are defending racist & bigoted stuff...That just annoys me...

I'm pissed off at the fact that people seem to be able to cry and whine about the two Djs right to free speech, and in the same sentence try to take away the asian american group's right to protest that speech.

I'm pissed off that as soon as someone protest racist & bigoted rhetoric, you have a large number of white guys crying about how there is a double standard...

There is no double standard here: Two white Djs decided to do a bigoted skit, some asian american groups complained about it, and the guys who run the station decided to fire them. Big Deal. Get Over It.

Their right to free speech doesn't protect their jobs. But the right to free spech shouldn't cost them jobs either.

Their right to free speech doesn't protect their jobs. But the right to free spech shouldn't cost them jobs either.

I love you, marry me and have my children.

What I object to is the unbalanced and unchecked power that small groups of vocal people have in this country

Oh, those fucking minorities! They control everything these days....

:rolleyes:

Indubitably.

I certainly don't object to a couple nimrod DJs being fired. What I object to is the unbalanced and unchecked power that small groups of vocal people have in this country, both officially(by complaining to the FCC) and unofficially(By making a media event of themselves), to control what I myself choose to see and hear. They don't have the right. My remote, radio dials and money speak plenty loud enough for me. *nod*

To be fair, this is a relatively recent turn of events. It's happened a lot more in recent years, but Imus wasn't doing anything he hadn't done for thirty years when he got canned. My guess is that it's hot right now, and in six months to a year, it'll blow over until someone else does something really stupid and gets canned, and we'll have this discussion all over again.

And knowing us, we'll both be here on NSG discussing it. ;)

Oh yeah, and in the meantime, there will still be plenty of racism out there in the open on right-wing talk radio, and all the protests in the world won't get it out of there. Anyone seriously think Limbaugh is about to lose stations over "Barack the Magic Negro"?

No "special sensitivity to their race or ethnicity" is necessary to see the point.

In the abstract, there's obviously no difference. But humor does not occur in the abstract. It occurs in the real world, where there is a real race problem, and a real dominance of society by one particular ethnic group.

It doesn't matter what ethnic group that dominant group is. There is no element of "special sensitivity" here. Regardless, jokes targeted at that group will have a very different social significance than ones targeted at marginalized groups.

It's a moot point anyway. In another few generations, everyone in America will be hispanic. :)

Their right to free speech doesn't protect their jobs. But the right to free spech shouldn't cost them jobs either.

That's probably the best way to put it.

Oh, those fucking minorities! They control everything these days....

:rolleyes:
You know he doesn't think like that.

In keeping with the spirit of Blazing Saddles

Actually, an excellent example of genuinely non-racist race humor.

Note how the main character is not stereotypical, and the focus of the humor is on the absurdity of White racism.

You know he doesn't think like that.

Um, I've been hearing for a long time about how the racial minorities are oppressing everybody else with their political correctness and their "reverse racism" and their "double standards."

There are quite a few Whites who seem to think that racial minorities are the privileged group now.

So, no. I don't know that at all.

And I'm really fucking tired of shit like that being tossed against every group that tries to combat racism.

Um, I've been hearing for a long time about how the racial minorities are oppressing everybody else with their political correctness and their "reverse racism" and their "double standards."

There are quite a few Whites who seem to think that racial minorities are the privileged group now.

So, no. I don't know that at all.

But Lunatic Goofballs isn't one of those people.

Their right to free speech doesn't protect their jobs. But the right to free spech shouldn't cost them jobs either.

I'm arguing that you all seem to be ignoring the Asian American Group's right to protest them and their free speech. If they have the right to say it, they have the right to protest it. And the fact of the matter is that the Asian American group protesting them wasn't the nail in the coffin on there jobs. The station decided they were too much trouble and fired them. Blame the Station, not the protesters.

I'm sure everyone agrees that the station is within its rights in firing the djs if it believes consumers (such as the Chinese advocacy group) are turned off by ethnic humor. However, not all ethnic humor skits are bigotted or demeaning. It's never good to be so hasty.

...If they aren't bigoted and demeaning they aren't ethnic humor skits. Most are based off of negative stereotypes, such as the the Puerto Rican who steals or the Black Guy who eats watermelon all day.

Oh, those fucking minorities! They control everything these days....

:rolleyes:

Yep. We are your gods now, Whitey! ANd we have crops that need picking...

Or perhaps, I was referring to special interest groups and the remarkably small handful of people with exceptionally loud mouths who pretend they speak for larger groups of people than themselves.

Anyone seriously think Limbaugh is about to lose stations over "Barack the Magic Negro"?

No. Because there is no justice in the world. :p

I'll have to ask my wife first. :D

Seriously though, you really do say things better than I do. :)

Can I hire you as my PR person? lol

I love you, marry me and have my children.

I'll have to ask my wife first. :D

How can I be? I'm not white. :p

LOL, That is true.

How can I be? I'm not white. :p
Maybe you aren't minority enough?

But Lunatic Goofballs isn't one of those people.

How can I be? I'm not white. :p

Yep. We are your gods now, Whitey!

I'm not White....

Or perhaps, I was referring to special interest groups and the remarkably small handful of people with exceptionally loud mouths who pretend they speak for larger groups of people than themselves.

Yes, this is the other refrain.

"Good blacks/gays/women/Asians have no problem when they're mocked and demeaned on television and radio. It's just those nasty loud-mouthed ones stirring up the pot."

Which, of course, begs the question: why does anyone pay attention to the ones with "exceptionally loud mouths"? After all, nobody else cares... right?

Maybe you aren't minority enough?

Well, I'm half white. I'm sort of an off-white. Or maybe an eggshell. :)

Because they sell news.

and it's all about ratings. I mean why do you think the Westboro Baptist Church is always on the news?

BTW, why haven't we bombed that church yet?

I'm not White....



Yes, this is the other refrain.

"Good blacks/gays/women/Asians have no problem when they're mocked and demeaned on television and radio. It's just those nasty loud-mouthed ones stirring up the pot."

Which, of course, begs the question: why does anyone pay attention to the ones with "exceptionally loud mouths"? After all, nobody else cares... right?

Because they sell news.

Because they sell news.

How can they possibly "sell news" that nobody cares about?

and it's all about ratings. I mean why do you think the Westboro Baptist Church is always on the news?

BTW, why haven't we bombed that church yet?

We're waiting for them all to be in it at once. :)

Ask Paris Hilton. :p

Or get an Ouija Board and ask Anna Nicole Smith.

Yep. We are your gods now, Whitey! ANd we have crops that need picking...

Or perhaps, I was referring to special interest groups and the remarkably small handful of people with exceptionally loud mouths who pretend they speak for larger groups of people than themselves.

Okay...Lets try this again...

All the special interest groups can do is protest something.

The station/corporation/government/whatever are the only ones who can fire you or perform some form of disciplinary action. The right to protest is an integral part of being American. They can protest as much as they want, its the people in power who decide things.

Stop blaming special interest groups. All they are doing is protesting the negative portrayl and/or demeaning of the group they're organized to defend.

How can they possibly "sell news" that nobody cares about?

Ask Paris Hilton. :p

Ask Paris Hilton. :p

People care about Paris Hilton.

So: where does the power of these loud-mouthed "special interests" come from? Where do they get this influence over the media? Where do they get their money? Where do they get their support?

Is it all a conspiracy? Or might it be, just possibly, that some people don't like being insulted and demeaned on the airwaves?

People care about Paris Hilton.

So: where does the power of these loud-mouthed "special interests" come from? Where do they get this influence over the media? Where do they get their money? Where do they get their support?

Is it all a conspiracy? Or might it be, just possibly, that some people don't like being insulted and demeaned on the airwaves?
I can tell you where they get the money. From people who think it's going to spent on more important issues, like equality in the workplace or adjustments to school curriculum.

I can tell you where they get the money. From people who think it's going to spent on more important issues, like equality in the workplace or adjustments to school curriculum.

So, knowing that these are the concerns of their supporters, the groups for some reason decide to draw attention to racist filth in the media instead?

Why?

So, knowing that these are the concerns of their supporters, the groups for some reason decide to draw attention to racist filth in the media instead?

Why?

To give the illusions that they are doing something?

So, knowing that these are the concerns of their supporters, the groups for some reason decide to draw attention to racist filth in the media instead?

Why?
A combinations of false indignation and laziness. This issue is a lot easier to confront, especially in the censorship-obsessed US, than other issues.

To give the illusions that they are doing something?

Actually, I agree. But since I don't see them as too inclined towards revolutionary agitation at the moment, I'll take what I can get.

People care about Paris Hilton.

So: where does the power of these loud-mouthed "special interests" come from? Where do they get this influence over the media? Where do they get their money? Where do they get their support?

Is it all a conspiracy? Or might it be, just possibly, that some people don't like being insulted and demeaned on the airwaves?

I'm sorry, you lost me at 'People care about Paris Hilton.'

Clearly we are never going to agree on anything and may God have mercy on your soul. *nod*

Special interest groups exist at the extremes of their demographic. Gun owners support the NRA because they support the right to bear arms and despite the fact that they're run by raving lunatics.

People like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Sharpton etc. etc. are spokesmen because they are the only ones speaking for issues that matter to people, and despite the fact that they're embarrassing themselves and us in so doing. :p

They become dangerous, however, when they have the power to control what we see and hear. Recently, that seems to be happening more and more. It's the New Censorship and it's dangerous. One of the most dangerous parts about it is that so many people(as can be witnessed by how many normally anti-censorship people in this forum support this behavior) think that this is perfectly legitimate activism.

In a few more years, I hope you remember who warned you about this.

Seriously though, you really do say things better than I do. :)

Can I hire you as my PR person? lol

One one condition: At each press conference, I get three pies. I then get to throw them at any journalists that ask me annoying questions. :)

I'm sorry, you lost me at 'People care about Paris Hilton.'

They do.

I don't. You (I assume) don't. But some people do.

issues that matter to people

Exactly. And one of those issues is racism in the media. That's what I've been saying.

They become dangerous, however, when they have the power to control what we see and hear.

Social disapproval has always been a regulating force on "what we see and hear."

Finally, racist "humor" is starting to become another thing that is socially disapproved. Good.

It's a shame we had to wait, though. And it's a shame that we are dependent on a racist society to stop racism.

Recently, that seems to be happening more and more. It's the New Censorship and it's dangerous.

To whom? To what?

To gay teens whose peers shout "faggot" at them? To black childrens growing up seeing racist stereotypes pervade the media? To women subordinated by a sexist culture?

No. Just to those who abuse, degrade, and demean them.

One of the most dangerous parts about it is that so many people(as can be witnessed by how many normally anti-censorship people in this forum support this behavior) think that this is perfectly legitimate activism.

It is.

Edit:
In a few more years, I hope you remember who warned you about this.

People have been saying it for at least fifty years.

It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now... with a few, very limited exceptions.

Social disapproval has always been a regulating force on "what we see and hear."
It shouldn't be.
To whom? To what?

To gay teens whose peers shout "faggot" at them? To black childrens growing up seeing racist stereotypes pervade the media? To women subordinated by a sexist culture?
You really can't see various religious groups using this tactic successfully? They have a lot more support than minorities.
What if the Southern Baptist Convention decided to try to get The Daley ShoW taken off the air because of some slight at creationists?

It shouldn't be.

You really can't see various religious groups using this tactic successfully? They have a lot more support than minorities.
What if the Southern Baptist Convention decided to try to get The Daley ShoW taken off the air because of some slight at creationists?

Until recently, I would have been convinced that Comedy Central would have just ignored such a thing. Now I'm not so sure.

It shouldn't be.

You're probably right.

You really can't see various religious groups using this tactic successfully?

Of course I can. They have.

But that is not the "New Censorship"... it is very old censorship.

At least they didn't tempt ten year old boys with promises of elephants...

Of course I can. They have.

But that is not the "New Censorship"... it is very old censorship.
That was Lunatic's phrase not mine.
I despise the Heckler's Veto, though I don't view it as anything new.

At least they didn't tempt ten year old boys with promises of elephants...

Or vice-versa. :)

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

What the fuck do you expect dude? Get off you morally liberal leaning teeter totter.. wake up and realize the white man is the public enemy #1. = Cop said freeze.. and I got numb.

What the fuck do you expect dude? Get off you morally liberal leaning teeter totter.. wake up and realize the white man is the public enemy #1. = Cop said freeze.. and I got numb.

..White's aren't public enemy #1, calm the fuck down...

..White's aren't public enemy #1, calm the fuck down...

Name something bad that the white man isn't blamed for. I know there are many.. but you won't hear it. To actually put blame on anyone other than a white .. is being a bigot and a racist. That is where it is today. I was being extreme when I said public eneny #1.. but it's not far from it. White men are portrayed as either being weak, crazy, racist.. or what? Never strong. Name me one TV show( and dont even try to play like TV doesn't show anything ) that shows a strong white man. You will NOT see a strong white man , loving his white family etc like you will in black films.. to be white and be proud of and love your race is to be racist.. and wrong. That is the truth.. and That is what pisses me off. You cannot be white and be proud of your race.. like a negro.. mexican or whatever the hell else can without being shown in a bad light, without being made to feel guilty. That's the truth.

Name me one TV show( and dont even try to play like TV doesn't show anything ) that shows a strong white man.

Father Knows Best.
Leave it to Beaver.
All in The Family.

want samething more recent?

24.
Battlestar Galactica.
Everybody Loves Raymond.

Must I continue?

You cannot be white and be proud of your race.. like a negro..

You just showed why that is, Mr. White as the sheets you just let pop out and give you away...

[QUOTE=Naturality;12651298 White men are portrayed as either being weak, crazy, racist.. or what? Never strong. Name me one TV show( and dont even try to play like TV doesn't show anything ) that shows a strong white man. [/QUOTE]

Star Trek TNG
Mythbusters
House
Smallville

Name something bad that the white man isn't blamed for. I know there are many.. but you won't hear it. To actually put blame on anyone other than a white .. is being a bigot and a racist. That is where it is today. I was being extreme when I said public eneny #1.. but it's not far from it. White men are portrayed as either being weak, crazy, racist.. or what? Never strong. Name me one TV show( and dont even try to play like TV doesn't show anything ) that shows a strong white man. You will NOT see a strong white man , loving his white family etc like you will in black films.. to be white and be proud of and love your race is to be racist.. and wrong. That is the truth.. and That is what pisses me off. You cannot be white and be proud of your race.. like a negro.. mexican or whatever the hell else can without being shown in a bad light, without being made to feel guilty. That's the truth.

Man what the fuck are you talking about?

the sad part is, it wasn't the original broadcast that did them in, but a re-broadcast.

Guess stations now have to go through their recordings to weed out offensive material.

Yeah. The re broadcast took place just after the Imus thing. People saw how fast CBS radio caved in on Imus and were encouraged to try and exert some pressure themselves.

I love how conservatives and libertarians go on and on about the power of the free market.

Except when the market does something they don't like.

My criticism isn't really aimed toward the groups that protested, they've got their right to do so. My criticism is aimed at the radio executives who don't understand that they're screwing themselves, their listeners, and the whole industry by caving in to the protesters. Who's going to listen to radio when it's bland, boring, and devoid of any controversy or humor?

I agree

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, these two shock jocks used their freedom of speech and now they have to deal with other people using theirs in response

Yeah, and now the radio stations are going to deal with a backlash from the fans of such entertainment. Getting the word out on message boards like this one, and wackbag.com, and others is a way of recruiting like minded people to help pressure the radio stations into growing a backbone and standing up to the whiners who can't stand the fact that someone, somewhere is saying something they find "offensive".

So two racist idiots got fired, so what?

So it doesn't end there. The pussies who run the radio stations have set a precedent that if someone complains they fire their talent regardlesss of ratings. Now that the precedent is set more and more complaints will roll in and soon all the radio stations will be boring as hell. I will lose one of my favorite forms of entertainment.

So it doesn't end there. The pussies who run the radio stations have set a precedent that if someone complains they fire their talent regardlesss of ratings. Now that the precedent is set more and more complaints will roll in and soon all the radio stations will be boring as hell. I will lose one of my favorite forms of entertainment.

Okay, calm down. Relax, we'll get through this...
First of all, as I stated in earlier post, It is perfectly okay for somebody to protest someone else for something they do or say. A number of Asian American Groups protested these two because of they're bigoted stereotypes.

Secondly, It is within the power of the peope who run the radio station to hire and/or fire whoever they want. I honestly don't know why they decided to fire the two of them: Maybe the people who run the station had an epiphany, that this kind of stereotypical low-brow humor is dumb. Or maybe they saw what happened to Imus, and didn't think a far smaller station to handle half of that. I don't know. But I do know they fired them, and the fact of the matter is that they had every right to do so, its their station.

Lastly, calm down. Relax. Go outside for a walk, it isn't near as serious as you make it out to be.

Oh, those fucking minorities! They control everything these days....

:rolleyes:

It's not the minorities. It's the special interest groups. This kind of thing is done by Christian groups, political groups and groups organized around race. They certainly have the right to express their concerns, but the responsibility of a business, like a radio station, is to cater to their customers or listeners, not a bunch of people who happen to belong to a vocal special interest group.

Father Knows Best.
Leave it to Beaver.
All in The Family.

want samething more recent?

24.
Battlestar Galactica.
Everybody Loves Raymond.

Must I continue?

I would like to add to the list "Scrubs". Dr. Cox just pwns. :D

Until recently, I would have been convinced that Comedy Central would have just ignored such a thing. Now I'm not so sure.

It would depend on whether the Southern Baptist Convention could convince Stewart's advertisers to drop the show or not, and as hot as Stewart is right now, I think he'd weather the storm. If he didn't, I have little doubt that someone would be ready to pick him up and offer him a similar job. Look at Bill Maher as an illustrative example.

Who was it that said that being too PC is going to take away our 1st amendment freedoms eventually? Yah, i see that happening.

Okay, calm down. Relax, we'll get through this...
First of all, as I stated in earlier post, It is perfectly okay for somebody to protest someone else for something they do or say. A number of Asian American Groups protested these two because of they're bigoted stereotypes.

Secondly, It is within the power of the peope who run the radio station to hire and/or fire whoever they want. I honestly don't know why they decided to fire the two of them: Maybe the people who run the station had an epiphany, that this kind of stereotypical low-brow humor is dumb. Or maybe they saw what happened to Imus, and didn't think a far smaller station to handle half of that. I don't know. But I do know they fired them, and the fact of the matter is that they had every right to do so, its their station.

Lastly, calm down. Relax. Go outside for a walk, it isn't near as serious as you make it out to be.

Yeah it is. Opie and Anthony, my favorite radio show, have expressed concern that this whole style of radio is now threatened. They're self-censoring to try to keep their job. Their show is being dumped out of on frequent occasions over things that they would have been able to say with no problem just a few years ago.

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

Reading the article, it sounds like the two guilty parties enjoy making idiots of themselves, and being provocative and insulting to other people for giggles.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. They aren't being told they can't be idiots any more... they aren't even being told they can't be provocative and insulting.

They are just being told they are no longer going to be paid. They will be amateur asshats, instead of professional ones.

Who was it that said that being too PC is going to take away our 1st amendment freedoms eventually? Yah, i see that happening.

I don't. First Amendment be damned, it has no relevence to this case. They aren't being told they can't speak freely... they are being told they can't speak freely on someone else's dime.

Who was it that said that being too PC is going to take away our 1st amendment freedoms eventually? Yah, i see that happening.

...Why is it all the stupid ones talk about first amendment rights?

No one took away their first amendment rights. They said something bigoted, somebody didn't like what they said and protested them, and their taskmasters caved. They can still say bigoted things, just have to do it somewhere else.

I don't. First Amendment be damned, it has no relevence to this case. They aren't being told they can't speak freely... they are being told they can't speak freely on someone else's dime.

But where does it stop? its bad enough that we have censorship boards...

I mean you have people like Al Sharpton, who cry about everything sad about a black person, and then utilizes his power to get people fired, ruined and so on. Granted its not the gov't, but why would they need to do it, when they can have people like Al Sharpton, do it for them?

Yeah it is. Opie and Anthony, my favorite radio show, have expressed concern that this whole style of radio is now threatened. They're self-censoring to try to keep their job. Their show is being dumped out of on frequent occasions over things that they would have been able to say with no problem just a few years ago.

Ah, so cause Opie & Anthony can't be as bigoted on radio, they're sad?
Unless Opie & Anthony's A-Game material comes from racist & controversial jokes, they'll be fine.

...Why is it all the stupid ones talk about first amendment rights?

No one took away their first amendment rights. They said something bigoted, somebody didn't like what they said and protested them, and their taskmasters caved. They can still say bigoted things, just have to do it somewhere else.



No need to flame young one.

But where does it stop? its bad enough that we have censorship boards...

I mean you have people like Al Sharpton, who cry about everything sad about a black person, and then utilizes his power to get people fired, ruined and so on. Granted its not the gov't, but why would they need to do it, when they can have people like Al Sharpton, do it for them?

Al Sharpton didn't 'Get Anyone Fired', he doesn't have the kind of power...

Jesus Fucking Christ, you're making me defend Al Sharpton...

Anyway, the owners and execs at CBS decided Imus was going to lose them money when the Sponsors started pulling away. Al Sharpton is an idiot, he can't get anything done. The sponsors can, they have money.

And how is it that this bullshit allways ties into some stupid 'omg, black people' shit?

They got fired for a prank phonecall? But a local radio station did prank phonecalls for years here and they were incredibly successful - in fact they were put on casette and sold! I'm aware that it has something to do with the fact that they put on a fake Chinese accent, but, please, have a little tolerance. This is just like that Rosie O'Donnell incident which was blown way out of proportion. The media's gotten to a point where you can make fun of people - as long as you are inherintly mocking yourself. I bet that if those DJs were "Asian-American" (that's a really loose term, isn't it?) there wouldn't have been half as many complaints.

Meh, sorry about the flaming, but I'm new to this debating thing and angry I get asked the same tiring questions again and again...

Ah, so cause Opie & Anthony can't be as bigoted on radio, they're sad?
Unless Opie & Anthony's A-Game material comes from racist & controversial jokes, they'll be fine.

Most good humor comes out of controversy. Eliminate the ability to make jokes about controversial or taboo subjects and you've eliminated the vast majority of humor. Some of their jokes touch on race, sexual orientation, and violence. So what? Does context mean nothing anymore? Are we going to live in a Disney nation where everything is inoffensive enough for five year olds? Don't you think we would lose something if that's the case?

Most good humor comes out of controversy. Eliminate the ability to make jokes about controversial or taboo subjects and you've eliminated the vast majority of humor. Some of their jokes touch on race, sexual orientation, and violence. So what? Does context mean nothing anymore? Are we going to live in a Disney nation where everything is inoffensive enough for five year olds? Don't you think we would lose something if that's the case?

What these two said was not meant to be controversial, but down right bigoted. They played on old and tired stereotypes and someone decided they'd heard enough. Off course, the timing with the Don Imus thing didn't help their cause either.

The extent of these two's humor was not meant to touch on taboo subjects. It was simply bigoted, pointless jokes founded on old, tired stereotypes.

What these two said was not meant to be controversial, but down right bigoted. They played on old and tired stereotypes and someone decided they'd heard enough. Off course, the timing with the Don Imus thing didn't help their cause either.

The extent of these two's humor was not meant to touch on taboo subjects. It was simply bigoted, pointless jokes founded on old, tired stereotypes.

I'm not defending their humor. I'm not a fan of JV and Elvis. I'm just complaining that the radio stations have decided to cave in to every vocal special interest group and that it's having a chilling effect on radio.

I'm not defending their humor. I'm not a fan of JV and Elvis. I'm just complaining that the radio stations have decided to cave in to every vocal special interest group and that it's having a chilling effect on radio.

I've always wondered why people get so bent, when they could just change the channel.

I've always wondered why people get so bent, when they could just change the channel.

Asked and answered. I'm not even going to bother reposting it.

Yeah it is. Opie and Anthony, my favorite radio show, have expressed concern that this whole style of radio is now threatened. They're self-censoring to try to keep their job. Their show is being dumped out of on frequent occasions over things that they would have been able to say with no problem just a few years ago.
Wasn't satellite radio supposed to solve this issue--subscribers would provide the revenue that advertisers provide on broadcast outlets, and so they would have more leeway to be controversial, just like Bill Maher can say stuff on HBO that he could never say on ABC. So why isn't it working? Is the medium too young to provide Opie and Anthony the salaries they desire, or is there just not enough interest in what they're doing given the backlash?

Asked and answered. I'm not even going to bother reposting it.

Yeah, I just have to read back through 196 posts...

Most good humor comes out of controversy. Eliminate the ability to make jokes about controversial or taboo subjects and you've eliminated the vast majority of humor. Some of their jokes touch on race, sexual orientation, and violence. So what? Does context mean nothing anymore? Are we going to live in a Disney nation where everything is inoffensive enough for five year olds? Don't you think we would lose something if that's the case?

I think you are deliberately blurring boundaries.

The humour is debatable... but it isn't debatable whether the 'ability to make jokes' is under attack, here - just the ability to do so publically, as a paid representative.

I don't really want my tv or radio censored before it gets to me... but these idiots are just the sort of thing i instantly turn off when I hear it. If they want to act like asshats, they should expect that their sponsors also get some say, and can choose to not be represented by their particular brand of 'humour'.

Wasn't satellite radio supposed to solve this issue--subscribers would provide the revenue that advertisers provide on broadcast outlets, and so they would have more leeway to be controversial, just like Bill Maher can say stuff on HBO that he could never say on ABC. So why isn't it working? Is the medium too young to provide Opie and Anthony the salaries they desire, or is there just not enough interest in what they're doing given the backlash?

They can and do say whatever they want on satellite radio, but many of their fans listen to them on terrestrial radio as well, and they're getting a show that's censored well beyond what the FCC would require.

They can and do say whatever they want on satellite radio, but many of their fans listen to them on terrestrial radio as well, and they're getting a show that's censored well beyond what the FCC would require.
My point is that this is a case of the market deciding what's acceptable and what isn't. And it was part of satellite radio's business strategy, if I'm not mistaken--they thought they could capture a large section of market by getting rid of advertisers, and more importantly, getting rid of FCC guidelines and rules on obscenity. But it hasn't worked that way thus far, in part because the entry into satellite radio for the average listener is still a bit expensive. Maybe the current activism against shock jocks will do wonders for the satellite radio industry--it certainly can't hurt them. Or maybe there's just less of a market for this sort of thing than anyone realizes.

My point is that this is a case of the market deciding what's acceptable and what isn't. And it was part of satellite radio's business strategy, if I'm not mistaken--they thought they could capture a large section of market by getting rid of advertisers, and more importantly, getting rid of FCC guidelines and rules on obscenity. But it hasn't worked that way thus far, in part because the entry into satellite radio for the average listener is still a bit expensive. Maybe the current activism against shock jocks will do wonders for the satellite radio industry--it certainly can't hurt them. Or maybe there's just less of a market for this sort of thing than anyone realizes.

I think it will drive all of this stuff to satellite. And satellite will stop syndicating to terrestrial broadcasts.

We saw the same thing happen with cable. I don't watch broadcast channels anymore, and if I watch TV, it's a cable channel, not a broadcast channel piped in over cable.

Yeah, I just have to read back through 196 posts...

It happened early, so it won't strain your eyeballs too much. Frankly the argument is too stupid for me to have to retype the rebuttal every time someone's too lazy to keep up with the discussion.

It happened early, so it won't strain your eyeballs too much. Frankly the argument is too stupid for me to have to retype the rebuttal every time someone's too lazy to keep up with the discussion.

I guess I'm lazy because I had to play RealLife instead of hang out on NS General...

I guess I'm lazy because I had to play RealLife instead of hang out on NS General...

And yet you're here, not too caught up 'playing RealLife' to keep making these stupid posts. Color me not impressed.

Imus went and apologized to Al Sharpton when he was catching heat for his comments. Al knows that one should never apologize. Here's what Rev. Al has to say about apologies.

“I did what I believed….They are asking me to grovel. They want black children to say they forced a black man coming out of the hard-core ghetto to his knees….Once you begin bending, it’s ‘did you bend today?’ or ‘I missed the apology, say it again.’ Once you start compromising, you lose respect for yourself.”
http://www.pitriff.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4071&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

And yet you're here, not too caught up 'playing RealLife' to keep making these stupid posts. Color me not impressed.

Sometimes RealLife is pretty slow...

Sometimes RealLife is pretty slow...

Great, you can use this down time to catch up.

Blah Blah Blah

:headbang: :sniper:

Someone doesn't know 'cntrl c' - click to place you want to put it and - 'cntrl v'.

Too lazy to copy and paste. Jesus! You must be horizontal!

Well--go to it, slugger, since it's so easy and you obviously have so much energy. :rolleyes:

Someone doesn't know 'cntrl c' - click to place you want to put it and - 'cntrl v'.

Too lazy to copy and paste. Jesus! You must be horizontal!

Dude, I posted it twice. I've put in more effort than should be required to respond to an ill thought out argument. Plus, I really do have real life on me right now. I'm only posting now to kill time because my roommate poached the shower.

Dude, I posted it twice. I've put in more effort than should be required to respond to an ill thought out argument. Plus, I really do have real life on me right now. I'm only posting now to kill time because my roommate poached the shower.

With my permission, I think you need a shower.

With my permission, I think you need a shower.

Don't you have some reading to do?

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

Damn- You had me worried it was O & A this time. I know they have some trouble with a homeless guy and Hillary Clinton/Condeleeza ice joke.


Its very dissapointing. Everyone is happy when ratings are good no matter what is said, but if there is any evidence to the contrary, they jettison them way too fast.
Radio is going to get pretty dull,pretty quickly.

I think you are deliberately blurring boundaries.

The humour is debatable... but it isn't debatable whether the 'ability to make jokes' is under attack, here - just the ability to do so publically, as a paid representative.

I don't really want my tv or radio censored before it gets to me... but these idiots are just the sort of thing i instantly turn off when I hear it. If they want to act like asshats, they should expect that their sponsors also get some say, and can choose to not be represented by their particular brand of 'humour'.


Isnt it somewhat similar to an "artist" creating a portrait of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung?

What these two said was not meant to be controversial, but down right bigoted. They played on old and tired stereotypes and someone decided they'd heard enough. Off course, the timing with the Don Imus thing didn't help their cause either.

The extent of these two's humor was not meant to touch on taboo subjects. It was simply bigoted, pointless jokes founded on old, tired stereotypes.

stereotypes are humorous because they are based on facts.

Imus *snip*

Imus was an asshat who reaped what he sowed. Get over it.

stereotypes are humorous because they are based on facts.

This message brought to you by the KKK Ministry of Humour.

Name something bad that the white man isn't blamed for. I know there are many.. but you won't hear it. To actually put blame on anyone other than a white .. is being a bigot and a racist. That is where it is today. I was being extreme when I said public eneny #1.. but it's not far from it. White men are portrayed as either being weak, crazy, racist.. or what? Never strong. Name me one TV show( and dont even try to play like TV doesn't show anything ) that shows a strong white man. You will NOT see a strong white man , loving his white family etc like you will in black films.. to be white and be proud of and love your race is to be racist.. and wrong. That is the truth.. and That is what pisses me off. You cannot be white and be proud of your race.. like a negro.. mexican or whatever the hell else can without being shown in a bad light, without being made to feel guilty. That's the truth.

I just visited tvguide.com and read through the listings for the next week. Limiting myself to non-reality, primetime, network TV shows which I have seen at least once, here is a list of shows containing at least one sympathetic character who is both white and male which you can see in the next week:

House
Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Veronica Mars
Boston Legal
Law & Order: SVU
Bones
Criminal Minds
Lost
Medium
The Office
Grey's Anatomy
CSI
Scrubs
ER
NUMB3RS
Law & Order
NCIS
Desperate Housewives
Brothers & Sisters
Two and a Half Men
24
Heroes

Yes, those poor, maligned, underrepresented white men! They have it so rough!

Imus was an asshat who reaped what he sowed. Get over it.

And the people who helped get him fired during his charity fundraising drive are cancer-loving child killers.

I just visited tvguide.com and read through the listings for the next week. Limiting myself to non-reality, primetime, network TV shows which I have seen at least once, here is a list of shows containing at least one sympathetic character who is both white and male which you can see in the next week:

House
Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Veronica Mars
Boston Legal
Law & Order: SVU
Bones
Criminal Minds
Lost
Medium
The Office
Grey's Anatomy
CSI
Scrubs
ER
NUMB3RS
Law & Order
NCIS
Desperate Housewives
Brothers & Sisters
Two and a Half Men
24
Heroes

Yes, those poor, maligned, underrepresented white men! They have it so rough!

and in all those shows where is the good male role model?

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, no offense meant

HouseHouse himself is a sarcastic, crippled ass and hardly sympathetic. Unless you meant his pretty boy sidekick?


Law & Order: Criminal Intent-One's a maverick oddball, the other's a maverick with anger issues on exile

Veronica Mars-Don't Watch

Boston Legal-They're all slimeball lawyers

Law & Order: SVU-One thrice divorced conspiracy theorist, one recovering alcoholic, and yet another with anger issues

Bones-ok, you may have me with this one...

Criminal Minds-...and this one

Lost-Don't watch

Medium-Don't Watch

The Office-The guys are usually fools

Grey's Anatomy-Don't Watch

CSI-Which one? Original-eccentric old man and another with emotional issues

Scrubs-Don't watch

ER-they're all hotheaded, arrogant idiots or just plain arrogant idiots

NUMB3RS-don't watch

Law & Order-they've cycled out all of the white main characters save for the ADA

NCIS-a geek, a player, and an authoritarian

Desperate Housewives-men are only there to serve as jokes

Brothers & Sisters-don't watch

Two and a Half Men-standard sitcom men

24-don't watch

Heroes-aside from the main villian being a complete psycho, the majority of the white characters are villains save for a handful



Added negative characterizations in bold. Just playing Devil's Advocate.

and in all those shows where is the good male role model?

Thats was not the question or point of view being refuted... the poster had made the claim that there were no powerful white male figures, that love their families (or etc) A role model is about more then just power or even loving their family.

Not only that but he was restricting white male role models to TV while comparing them to black people in the film.


So I am confused as to the point of your question in reference to the debate.

Not only that but he was restricting white male role models to TV while comparing them to black people in the film.


Expand it to movies and the picture really doesn't improve much.

This message brought to you by the KKK Ministry of Humour.

Not by a long shot.

Expand it to movies and the picture really doesn't improve much.

As compared to what? Personally most characters are meant to be dynamic and attention grabbing despite race

The whole point of the rebuttal was to show that there were white characters portrayed as non villains or powerful or worthy of looking up to at least in some aspects

He asked for just one ... we gave more then one

Trying to extend the examples to prove something beyond what they were intended is rather odd

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, no offense meant

HouseHouse himself is a sarcastic, crippled ass and hardly sympathetic. Unless you meant his pretty boy sidekick?

Being crippled and sarcastic makes one cease to be a strong male character? You're hardly likely to find any show on television with flawless[/i[] characters of any race or gender, because flawless people are boring. House is unmistakably brilliant, dedicated to his job, and likable in his own insane, sarcastic way.

Law & Order: Criminal Intent-One's a maverick oddball, the other's a maverick with anger issues on exile

I have not, to be honest, watched this show more than about three times. However, the male characters nonetheless seemed both white and sympathetic.

Veronica Mars-Don't Watch

Boston Legal-They're all slimeball lawyers

Being a lawyer excludes one from being a sympathetic character? Was Claire Huxtable unsympathetic, too? :p

Law & Order: SVU-One thrice divorced conspiracy theorist, one recovering alcoholic, and yet another with anger issues

See reply for "House" in re: perfect people are boring.

Bones-ok, you may have me with this one...

Criminal Minds-...and this one

Lost-Don't watch

Jack Sheppard could hardly be a more obvious "sympathetic strong male character" if he were specifically written to be a sympathetic strong male character. Oh, wait, he was! :)

Medium-Don't Watch

The husband on this show is quite egregiously likable, smart, male, white, and devoted to his family, i.e. everything the poster I responded demanded an example of.

The Office-The guys are usually fools

Jim's a fool? Also, y'know, it's a sitcom. People on sitcoms = silly. That's sort of a given.

Grey's Anatomy-Don't Watch

CSI-Which one? Original-eccentric old man and another with emotional issues

Again, being strictly honest, I'm not sure - this show makes me want to gouge my eyeballs out, so I don't watch it voluntarily. The poster I was responding to, however, never specified that the TV shows in question needed to be [i]good!

Scrubs-Don't watch

ER-they're all hotheaded, arrogant idiots or just plain arrogant idiots

NUMB3RS-don't watch

Law & Order-they've cycled out all of the white main characters save for the ADA

...the most famous, long-standing character on the show is strong, white, and male.

NCIS-a geek, a player, and an authoritarian

*cough* See above, re: perfect people.

Desperate Housewives-men are only there to serve as jokes

Hardly! Tom and Mike would both very obviously fit the bill, here.

Brothers & Sisters-don't watch

Two and a Half Men-standard sitcom men

Indeed. Who also happen to be white, reasonably sympathetic, etc.

24-don't watch

Heroes-aside from the main villian being a complete psycho, the majority of the white characters are villains save for a handful

I'm curious about your math here. I'd figure that Sylar and Linderman are fairly unambiguous villains, Nathan, Parkman, Bennett, and what's-his-face the invisible man are all somewhat morally ambiguous but tend towards good, and Peter is unambiguously good. How does that add up to "mostly villains"?

Isnt it somewhat similar to an "artist" creating a portrait of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung?

Sure. I respect their right to do it, even if I might not like their product. However, if they do it on someone lese's dime, they have to expect some kind of accountability.

I'm not actually sure that phoning someone and pretending a stereotypically offensive accent is 'art' by anyone's stretch, though.

I'm curious about your math here. I'd figure that Sylar and Linderman are fairly unambiguous villains, Nathan, Parkman, Bennett, and what's-his-face the invisible man are all somewhat morally ambiguous but tend towards good, and Peter is unambiguously good. How does that add up to "mostly villains"?

When you're essentially trolling :D

Pretty much everything you've said is correct. I was just pointing out that not everyone would consider the characters in those shows to be good role models.

I really only take issue with the sitcoms personally. To me they seem like once the swing towards more independent, strong female characters started, it never stopped until most of the men became incompetant sex-fiends that could never get anything right and relied on their brilliant wives to get them through the day.

Sure. I respect their right to do it, even if I might not like their product. However, if they do it on someone lese's dime, they have to expect some kind of accountability.

I'm not actually sure that phoning someone and pretending a stereotypically offensive accent is 'art' by anyone's stretch, though.

Who gets to decide what's art?

When you're essentially trolling :D

Pretty much everything you've said is correct. I was just pointing out that not everyone would consider the characters in those shows to be good role models.

I really only take issue with the sitcoms personally. To me they seem like once the swing towards more independent, strong female characters started, it never stopped until most of the men became incompetant sex-fiends that could never get anything right and relied on their brilliant wives to get them through the day.

Heh. To be fair, while sitcom men are mostly fat, pathetic slobs who can't so much as fix a sandwich without their wives' help, sitcom women are mostly flighty, obsessive-compulsive flibbertigibbets who rarely, if ever, have jobs outside the home. It evens out. :p

Who gets to decide what's art?

I notice you (again) picked the quibble, rather than the meat of the argument.

Your whole thread has been dedicated to demonising, and suggesting that somehow these poor guys are being mistreated, or deprived of some right.

It's been pointed out a number of times - they can continue to be asshats all they like - they are just on their own dime, now... and there is nothing in the Constitution to make it wrong that that is the case.

But - what is art... somewhere between intention and reception, I would say. Once the artist decalres something art, I guess you have to look at it in those terms, and decide how appropriate you think it is, or how well you think it represents itself. Have these guys claimed their 'art' is suffering?

Heh. To be fair, while sitcom men are mostly fat, pathetic slobs who can't so much as fix a sandwich without their wives' help, sitcom women are mostly flighty, obsessive-compulsive flibbertigibbets who rarely, if ever, have jobs outside the home. It evens out. :p

Fair enough. But it's still clear who's the smarter and more in-control of the pair, and it's almost never the man. To me, the so-called "equal partnership" that the original move was supposed to bring instead just overbalanced it on the other end.

Maybe I'm just nostalgic for the older sitcoms: where both parents were smart enough to operate independently...and still screw everything up in a comedic manner.

Fair enough. But it's still clear who's the smarter and more in-control of the pair, and it's almost never the man. To me, the so-called "equal partnership" that the original move was supposed to bring instead just overbalanced it on the other end.

Maybe I'm just nostalgic for the older sitcoms: where both parents were smart enough to operate independently...and still screw everything up in a comedic manner.

There's still the occasional sitcom that manages to make the characters semi-intelligent. "Everybody Loves Raymond" was a fairly good example of a "classic"-style sitcom which managed to make all of the characters funny without making any of them complete blithering idiots. (And if you venture outside the classic format, you get gems like "Arrested Development," in which all of the characters are delightfully insane, with no boring stereotypes involved. Pity there aren't more of those...)

Anyway, we should probably stop hijacking this thread, as sitcom family dynamics are a bit off-topic. :)

I notice you (again) picked the quibble, rather than the meat of the argument.

Your whole thread has been dedicated to demonising, and suggesting that somehow these poor guys are being mistreated, or deprived of some right.

It's been pointed out a number of times - they can continue to be asshats all they like - they are just on their own dime, now... and there is nothing in the Constitution to make it wrong that that is the case.

But - what is art... somewhere between intention and reception, I would say. Once the artist decalres something art, I guess you have to look at it in those terms, and decide how appropriate you think it is, or how well you think it represents itself. Have these guys claimed their 'art' is suffering?
I never said that they were deprived of some right. I've been criticizing the radio executives for caving in to pressure from small vocal special interest groups.



More radio DJs fired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JV and Elvis, the two "shock jocks" who were recently suspended due to a prank call to a Chinese restaurant, have been officially fired.http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/i...id=40&Itemid=1

I'm no JV and Elvis fan, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that the radio industry has no loyalty to it's talent and no desire to protect it's long term interests. If they keep caving in to every whiney little crybaby organization that claims it was offended they soon won't have any interesting talent, then they won't have an audience or ratings or ad revenues. Fucking morons don't seem to understand that the way you win this is to stick to your guns and trust that boycotts tend to end in about a week or so.

My criticism isn't really aimed toward the groups that protested, they've got their right to do so. My criticism is aimed at the radio executives who don't understand that they're screwing themselves, their listeners, and the whole industry by caving in to the protesters. Who's going to listen to radio when it's bland, boring, and devoid of any controversy or humor?

Yeah, and now the radio stations are going to deal with a backlash from the fans of such entertainment. Getting the word out on message boards like this one, and wackbag.com, and others is a way of recruiting like minded people to help pressure the radio stations into growing a backbone and standing up to the whiners who can't stand the fact that someone, somewhere is saying something they find "offensive".
__________________

So it doesn't end there. The pussies who run the radio stations have set a precedent that if someone complains they fire their talent regardlesss of ratings. Now that the precedent is set more and more complaints will roll in and soon all the radio stations will be boring as hell. I will lose one of my favorite forms of entertainment.

It's not the minorities. It's the special interest groups. This kind of thing is done by Christian groups, political groups and groups organized around race. They certainly have the right to express their concerns, but the responsibility of a business, like a radio station, is to cater to their customers or listeners, not a bunch of people who happen to belong to a vocal special interest group.

What more do I have to say? I'm not trying to silence the crybabies, I'm hoping people will stand up for their favorite radio shows and that the broadcasters will grow a pair of balls. I'm saying the broadcasting companies have a responsibility to their listeners, that is if they still want listeners.

What more do I have to say? I'm not trying to silence the crybabies, I'm hoping people will stand up for their favorite radio shows and that the broadcasters will grow a pair of balls.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen. I demand Arrested Development back!

Opie and Anthony have been fired from XM satellite radio. If you're a fan cancel your subscription and write your congressman and senators to vote against the proposed XM/Sirius merger.

http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php?t=67441

Opie and Anthony have been fired from XM satellite radio. If you're a fan cancel your subscription and write your congressman and senators to vote against the proposed XM/Sirius merger.

http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php?t=67441

are you sure this is the case? As of yesterday they just got suspended.

are you sure this is the case? As of yesterday they just got suspended.

No Filter Paul says that they're fired. Most of Wackbag is convinced this is the case. Anyhow, if they're suspended you can reconnect when they come back. Don't smash your XM just yet. Even if this news is wrong this still sends a message not to fuck with the boys.

bump