Political Correctness: is it just a modern myth?

w66w66

She wasn't a guest on the show, he was just discussing her, in glowing terms I might add. It seems clear to me he meant to say coup, for why would he be praise her and then racially insult her in the same sentence. Also the sentence doesn't work if he meant to say coon.
He made a mistake and then immediately apologised for it, I don't think people should expect disc jockeys be infallible.

red dave

http://www.answers.com/coon&r=67

"She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.

"I didn't mean that. It was just a slip of the tongue. She's definitely got all the attributes to be commissioner. I'm really sorry about that."

Also the sentence doesn't work if he meant to say coon.

I agree

Lenihan also got a call from associates of Larry Elder, a nationally syndicated, black conservative talk show host, who invited him for an interview.

Elder told The Associated Press that he suspects Lenihan morphed the words "coup" and "boon" to come up with "coon." He said prominent blacks have made disparaging remarks about Rice and gotten away with it, and feels Lenihan's firing was unfounded

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

It makes perfect sense to have an HIV screening process. And why is no one talking about how all this money sent to Africa enables their irresponsible sex practises? Oh no.... cant say that....

Er, what? Unless you're talking about the Catholic Church's mis-education efforts, I'm really not sure what that's meant to mean.

fly_agaric

w66w66 wrote:

She wasn't a guest on the show

Sorry for not paying enough attention. I thought he had done it to her in person which would be a good deal worse.

To top it off, Lenihan was suspended Thursday from his job at Logan College of Chiropractic, where he's taught anatomy and neuroanatomy since September 2004.

Is that related? If so, why should his on-air cock-up affect any other job he does? That doesn't seem fair now, does it? Another example of a PC excess?

rsynnott

One who makes racial slurs on television is arguably not a functioning member of society, and should not be in a job which involves social interaction with people.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

One who makes racial slurs on television is arguably not a functioning member of society, and should not be in a job which involves social interaction with people.

Vis-a-vi being a functioning member of society, he probably contributes a lot more tax than you. What does that make you?

mountainyman

rsynnott wrote:

One who makes racial slurs on television is arguably not a functioning member of society, and should not be in a job which involves social interaction with people.

This is what he said:
"She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.

"I didn't mean that. It was just a slip of the tongue. She's definitely got all the attributes to be commissioner. I'm really sorry about that."

Anyway that is political correctness gone mad and Condy has accepted the apology.

MM

rsynnott

mountainyman wrote:

This is what he said:
"She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.

"I didn't mean that. It was just a slip of the tongue. She's definitely got all the attributes to be commissioner. I'm really sorry about that."

Anyway that is political correctness gone mad and Condy has accepted the apology.

MM

Why mentioning her race in the first place was relevant, I don't know. But no, I don't think it's reasonable to make racial slurs in public, even if they are "mistakes".

Re: Corinthian's tax thing - don't be silly.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Re: Corinthian's tax thing - don't be silly.

Personally I'd consider someone who contributes to society to be a functioning member of that society and financial contributions rate pretty highly in that regard. And if if he height of your contribution to society is posting on an Internet bulletin board; well, we both know what that make you.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Personally I'd consider someone who contributes to society to be a functioning member of that society and financial contributions rate pretty highly in that regard. And if if he height of your contribution to society is posting on an Internet bulletin board; well, we both know what that make you.

Fortunately, it isn't

Now, obviously he pays tax, thus he is contributing something to society. However, he's also using racial slurs on the television, thus at least potentially damaging and fragmenting society. How much tax must one pay to offset hate speech on television, precisely? Where is the break-even point?

metrovelvet

I cant believe a professional broadcaster made that error! Im suprised he wasnt fired. There is a huge difference between your regular joe saying that and someone who gets a salary to speak. If its a slip of the tongue it shows you its in the consciousness of this speaker somewhere. Coon is from the 40s isnt it?

Also dont knock TCs taxes. They help pay for your education. Along with all the other middle class Irish who benefit from free third level education in Ireland.

Though what a coup it would be if the republican party gave America its first woman, black, and lesbian [?] president. Bring it on.

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

Anyway that is political correctness gone mad and Condy has accepted the apology.

People have repeatedly pointed it out to you and last time I checked you were using the most bizarre logic to ignore them. That he was still fired from his radio job and suspended from his college job and your spin on it is that she accepted his apology, those it’s all right, is just another example of this.

rsynnott wrote:

Fortunately, it isn't

Paying duty on beer and cigs doesn’t really count.

Now, obviously he pays tax, thus he is contributing something to society. However, he's also using racial slurs on the television, thus at least potentially damaging and fragmenting society. How much tax must one pay to offset hate speech on television, precisely? Where is the break-even point?

He made a (Freudian) slip, for which he apologised instantly - hardly racial slurs and hardly inciting a re-enactment of the Rodney King riots. Yet he got fired from one job and suspended from another, while if he had accidentally said fúck, the whole thing would have blown over within a day.

And making the judgment that someone who can make an unintentional slip should not be a functioning member of society is another example of the moronic excesses of PC groupthink.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Also dont knock TCs taxes. They help pay for your education. Along with all the other middle class Irish who benefit from free third level education in Ireland.

No, no, I was responding to TC, talking about the broadcaster.

The Corinthian wrote:

Paying duty on beer and cigs doesn’t really count.

Ah, let's make assumptions about people!

metrovelvet

Oh he was fired. No surprise then. If a broadcaster accidentally said **** they could well be fired. This is a birfurcated nation, both licentious and prudish all at the same time.

The hoopla they made over an exposed nipple during the superbowl is an example. PC comes out of the same puritanical instinct: to sanitise, purify and sterilise language/consciousness.

mountainyman

rsynnott wrote:

Why mentioning her race in the first place was relevant, I don't know. But no, I don't think it's reasonable to make racial slurs in public, even if they are "mistakes"...

It was a slip of the the tongue, a Freudian slip as it were.
One should not criminalise thought. We should all have the right to think whatever we want even if that is racist and certainly we should not be punished for our subconscious thoughts; which is what this clearly was.

MM

mountainyman

metrovelvet wrote:

...PC comes out of the same puritanical instinct: to sanitise, purify and sterilise language/consciousness.

Apropos of nothing so does the Gay rights movement. Americans are uncomfortable with the transgressive and seek to normalise it.

This is why all great American culture (Apart from the book 'Tis') comes from the Negros * they are already outsiders and therefore are critical of the broader culture (of course the Negro does not necessarily have any more ability to challenge his own subculture than most Americans have in regards to the broader culture).


MM

* and apart from the Sopranos

mountainyman

The Corinthian wrote:

People have repeatedly pointed it out to you and last time I checked you were using the most bizarre logic to ignore them. That he was still fired from his radio job and suspended from his college job and your spin on it is that she accepted his apology, those it’s all right, is just another example of this.

Does anyone know what The Corinthian is on about here?
What is The Corinthian claiming to have pointed out to me?

MM

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

Does anyone know what The Corinthian is on about here?
What is The Corinthian claiming to have pointed out to me?

I've made my point, I've no interest in wasting anymore of my time going around in circles with you again.

metrovelvet

mountainyman wrote:

Apropos of nothing so does the Gay rights movement. Americans are uncomfortable with the transgressive and seek to normalise it.

This is why all great American culture (Apart from the book 'Tis') comes from the Negros * they are already outsiders and therefore are critical of the broader culture (of course the Negro does not necessarily have any more ability to challenge his own subculture than most Americans have in regards to the broader culture).

MM

* and apart from the Sopranos

What an enormously sweeping statement about "all great american culture". I cant even begin to address it.

First of all they are not called "negroes". Secondly they are not outsiders. They have been part of this country since its inception and an integral part of its development and have made invaluable contributions to American culture. So I dont know what your talking about.

The gay rights movement are who want to "normalise it" so they dont feel so particularised.

*The book 'Tis is a piece of **** imo.

mountainyman

This is from discourse ethics by Jurgen Habermas it is not a quote it is from a restatement taken from the internet

• Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse.
• Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
• Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.
• Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires, and needs.
• No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down above.

Thoughts?

MM

mountainyman

metrovelvet wrote:

What an enormously sweeping statement about "all great american culture". I cant even begin to address it.

Jazz, the Blues, Rock n Roll Soul Music, Funk, Rap

metrovelvet wrote:

First of all they are not called "negroes".

Political Correctness gone mad.

metrovelvet wrote:

Secondly they are not outsiders.
They have been part of this country since its inception and an integral part of its development and have made invaluable contributions to American culture. So I dont know what your talking about.

Until the 1860s they lived under an extraordinarily harsh system of slavery, for the next hundred years they were savagely oppressed. If you really believe that African Americans are not outsiders in America well maybe you're right you probably know more than me. Maybe it's time to burn my copy of Soul on Ice.

metrovelvet wrote:

...invaluable contributions to American culture ...

That is what I said

metrovelvet wrote:

What an enormously sweeping statement about "all great american culture". I cant even begin to address it.

First of all they are not called "negroes". Secondly they are not outsiders. They have been part of this country since its inception and an integral part of its development and have made invaluable contributions to American culture. So I dont know what your talking about.

The gay rights movement are who want to "normalise it" so they dont feel so particularised.

*The book 'Tis is a piece of **** imo.

metrovelvet wrote:

The gay rights movement are who want to "normalise it" so they dont feel so particularised.

I know they want to normalise it but doesn't that also have to do with attitudes towards the transgressive.

MM

metrovelvet

Does this show weve moved along beyond hypersensitivity or that weve regressed? According to Tracy Cox, sex therapist and guest of Americas richest African American female:

African-American men have the biggest penises.
True. Research confirms that Asian men are the smallest, followed by Caucasians, with African-American men being the largest.

http://www.oprah.com/relationships/relationships_content.jhtml?contentId=con_20040219_traceycox.xml&section=Sex&subsection=Sex

Tell your sisters!

Freelancer

Metrovelvet wrote:

It makes perfect sense to have an HIV screening process. And why is no one talking about how all this money sent to Africa enables their irresponsible sex practises? Oh no.... cant say that....

Again I'll ask you who is spending money to spread "their irresponsible sex practises?"

Does this show weve moved along beyond hypersensitivity or that weve regressed? According to Tracy Cox, sex therapist and guest of Americas richest African American female:

What does physiological features have to do with this debate?

Seriously metrovelvet, if you were a superhero you'd be "Non Sequitur Woman!"*

*or person.

metrovelvet

Because to say something like that even 5 years ago would have been a horrendous error. It is the root of so many stereotypes around black men, having to do with animal and less intelligent capabilities.

So in terms of PC, Im asking if weve arrived at a place where we can acknowlege traits among peoples [ie like drink and having babies among the Irish] without it being a blow to that groups self esteem.

Dont you know it all starts with the body? I guess you havent read your Foucault.

Who is funding Africa? We are. Charities. Church. Bono. You know that.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

Because to say something like that even 5 years ago would have been a horrendous error.

With whom? And I can even recall a joke in blazing saddles, which made light of this stereotype

"its truw it's really truw!!!"

So to suggest it couldn't be discussed when Mel Brokes was making jokes about it 25 years ago simply isn't true.

And I'm not even going into Linford "Lunchbox" Christy jokes*

* not something I ever thought I'd have to reference in the politics forum. :rolleyes:

It is the root of so many stereotypes around black men, having to do with animal and less intelligent capabilities.

So in terms of PC, Im asking if weve arrived at a place where we can acknowlege traits among peoples [ie like drink and having babies among the Irish] without it being a blow to that groups self esteem.

Um yes I think we have. A long time ago. Native American and Aboringary groups have long admited to being genetical more prone to alcoholism, while African Americans are most likely to have Sickle cell anemia.

So I think the rest of intelligent people have already reached these conclusions.

Its when someone gets a trait and twisted it to suit their own purposes that it becomes "un-pc" or more accurately "racist" ie, the majority of the US prison population is African American QED African Americans are genetically programed to be criminals.

Dont you know it all starts with the body? I guess you havent read your Foucault.

Er yes I have, I suspect unlike you, I understood it.

Who is funding Africa? We are. Charities. Church. Bono. You know that.

Thats half the answer, now pray tell, what irresponsible sexual practices to Africans engage in that we dont?

red dave

We know who is funding; but how exactly does funding Africa enable their irresponsible sex practices?

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

Um yes I think we have. A long time ago. Native American and Aboringary groups have long admited to being genetical more prone to alcoholism, while African Americans are most likely to have Sickle cell anemia.

So I think the rest of intelligent people have already reached these conclusions.

Its when someone gets a trait and twisted it to suit their own purposes that it becomes "un-pc" or more accurately "racist" ie, the majority of the US prison population is African American QED African Americans are genetically programed to be criminals.

Actually accepting that any trait is attributable to race is by definition racist. What differentiates what we consider acceptable racism and unacceptable racism is in part the scientific veracity of the attributable trait, but especially whether that trait would be deemed offensive.

As such most racialist theories tend to fail on the first criteria in that they are often based upon dubious correlations, superficial observations and inductive reasoning. However, even in the case that a racialist theory is sound scientifically (or as sound as any theory can be) it may not be deemed acceptable to society.

For example, the ‘Bell Curve’ was a controversial study of intelligence levels in the US published in 1994. What made it controversial is that it put forward a racial attribute to intelligence. This lead to national US and international academic debate and numerous anti-racism groups denouncing the book. Its findings remain controversial to this day.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually accepting that any trait is attributable to race is by definition racist. What differentiates what we consider acceptable racism and unacceptable racism is in part the scientific veracity of the attributable trait, but especially whether that trait would be deemed offensive.

As such most racialist theories tend to fail on the first criteria in that they are often based upon dubious correlations, superficial observations and inductive reasoning. However, even in the case that a racialist theory is sound scientifically (or as sound as any theory can be) it may not be deemed acceptable to society.

For example, the ‘Bell Curve’ was a controversial study of intelligence levels in the US published in 1994. What made it controversial is that it put forward a racial attribute to intelligence. This lead to national US and international academic debate and numerous anti-racism groups denouncing the book. Its findings remain controversial to this day.

Well I suppose it depends in the trait announcing that black people of african decent are more likely to get sickle cell anema isn't racist. Its a fact.

Announcing that the prison population of the US is comprised of a majority of black people isn't racist its a fact.

Saying that black people are more likely to be crack addicts, isn't racist its a fact.

Drawing a conclusion that this means that black people genetically more likely to all be criminal junkies is racist.

Because it ignores other factors, like environment and poverty levels among the black community.

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

Well I suppose it depends in the trait announcing that black people of african decent are more likely to get sickle cell anema isn't racist. Its a fact.

Just because it’s a fact does not make it any less racist. Unless someone’s decided to change the definition of the word racist, the last time I checked it denoted any belief that race was a determinant (genetically) so someone’s make-up.

Announcing that the prison population of the US is comprised of a majority of black people isn't racist its a fact.

It’s not, but that statement alone is not claiming that by being of a certain race you’re more or less likely to go to prison, however the previous statement on sickle cell anemia does claim that by being of a certain race you’re more or less likely to get sickle cell anemia.

Saying that black people are more likely to be crack addicts, isn't racist its a fact.

Drawing a conclusion that this means that black people genetically more likely to all be criminal junkies is racist.

Because it ignores other factors, like environment and poverty levels among the black community.

I agree, simply based upon your above statement, the logic is fallacious. However you’re getting confused between a false statement and a racist one.

samb

Freelancer wrote:

Well I suppose it depends in the trait announcing that black people of african decent are more likely to get sickle cell anema isn't racist. Its a fact.

Announcing that the prison population of the US is comprised of a majority of black people isn't racist its a fact.

Saying that black people are more likely to be crack addicts, isn't racist its a fact.

Drawing a conclusion that this means that black people genetically more likely to all be criminal junkies is racist.

Because it ignores other factors, like environment and poverty levels among the black community.

The important point to remember here that even if there was conclusive evidence that black people genetically more likely to all be criminal junkies is racist. that would not mean that racism was valid. Each individual person would retain the right to be judged individually.

Corinthian alluded to Normal Distributions (the bell curve) already. If this is understood in relation to intelligence for example it just means that as you reach the highest IQ's that more white people reach above a certain score, it does say anything about an individual black person. (the ability of these IQ test is also questionable).

Sorry for the ham-fisted prose;)