Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by Anji:

What Imus said wasn't terrible at all, because he says it about every person and race. He's whole show makes fun about everyone there, himselve, wife and every politcally correct backwards rule in america.

I see what u r saying but at the same time u have to look at it like this: This country was based on race oppression and genocide from the day the native Americans saw ships on their docks. The opression (based on race and class) still exists and affects people today! There were three people involved in the origin of this history: Europeans, Native Americans and Africans. Native Americans lost there land a maaaaaany of them lost their lives (as they once populated these United States). Europeans became the dominant force here. Africans became slaves of the land. Cut to the abolition of slavery and you have an era where recontruction was suppose to be in play but the free citizens that owed most of the land (who happened to mostly be white)...well, those who felt threatened, went and formed the klan and the government implimented Jim crow laws. This was to demoralize, oppress and demean a group of people JUST BASED ON RACE. And there was 9is) a whole vocabulary that goes along with that oppression (ask Imus...apparently he knows some of them). This is in my parents life time because they faced it. Black people, here in America, faught against ignorance and even lost lives. So, here in this country, those types of comments run very deep. Not to take away racism on other groups but America has a specific history that dates back to simply black and white. We have grandmothers and greatgrandmothers who were lynched and raped because of their skin color. And guess what? They too were called ignorant names that go along with those types of actions. Point is this: the opression STILL goes on and exists. So some may feel indifferent but there are many people who aren't indifferent. Indifference, to me, is just as dangerous as ignorance.

The present is totally affected by the living past.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by codeunknown:

There is a difference between the two statements - one is offensive in a historical context (Michael Ray) and one is offensive in any context (Imus). One is insensitive and likely the result of an ignorance of that historical context (Michael Ray) and one directly and unambiguously demeans black women (Imus). I think what Eny is saying is - if you wanted to give one of them the benefit of the doubt, it would have to be Michael Ray. And I would agree with that.

Both statements are DEMEANING to a group of a people, differentiation is just a different form of BIAS.

Differentiation here is not just a different form of bias, Solace - that itself is a generalization that doesn't mean very much. Look carefully at the two statements. There is a difference between the two statements and it is important. In the context of Imus's comment, its quite clear he knew what he was saying - its not at all reasonable to pretend that he didn't know what nappy meant - and, if he didn't, he would have said so. Wheareas its far more possible that Michael Ray was ignorant of the subtleties of the "crafty," "best airports" and "best lawyers" comments. Saying that one is less offensive than the other given a context is not an example of bias, it is rooted in fact. Neither of these fools is winning a medal anytime soon - but one is clearly more offensive than the other if context, intention and potential malice is taken into account.

Do you really feel that you can say what Michael Ray said and be ignorant of what he was implying? Everyone knows what Michael Ray was implying, just as knowing what Imus was implying was revealed after I found out the slang meaning of nappy. They're both wrong and both either deserve outrage or don't. I'm not going to sit here and be told that Jewish slurs are less than black ones. That's insulting to my intelligence. Hatred breeds many forms and it's showing in this thread.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by Silverfuel:

There is a difference between stereotyping and saying racially insensitive stuff. Imus said something racially insensitive.

You're the one making the discretion. That discretion is not fact, it's your opinion. And it's wrong.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

Posted by Anji:

What Imus said wasn't terrible at all, because he says it about every person and race. He's whole show makes fun about everyone there, himselve, wife and every politcally correct backwards rule in america.

I see what u r saying but at the same time u have to look at it like this: This country was based on race oppression and genocide from the day the native Americans saw ships on their docks. The opression (based on race and class) still exists and affects people today! There were three people involved in the origin of this history: Europeans, Native Americans and Africans. Native Americans lost there land a maaaaaany of them lost their lives (as they once populated these United States). Europeans became the dominant force here. Africans became slaves of the land. Cut to the abolition of slavery and you have an era where recontruction was suppose to be in play but the free citizens that owed most of the land (who happened to mostly be white)...well, those who felt threatened, went and formed the klan and the government implimented Jim crow laws. This was to demoralize, oppress and demean a group of people JUST BASED ON RACE. And there was 9is) a whole vocabulary that goes along with that oppression (ask Imus...apparently he knows some of them). This is in my parents life time because they faced it. Black people, here in America, faught against ignorance and even lost lives. So, here in this country, those types of comments run very deep. Not to take away racism on other groups but America has a specific history that dates back to simply black and white. We have grandmothers and greatgrandmothers who were lynched and raped because of their skin color. And guess what? They too were called ignorant names that go along with those types of actions. Point is this: the opression STILL goes on and exists. So some may feel indifferent but there are many people who aren't indifferent. Indifference, to me, is just as dangerous as ignorance.

The present is totally affected by the living past.

Interesting post. Just wanted to get your opinion. Do you think that Jews have a right to feel the same way? Over 6 million of them were slaughtered due to prejudice and bias, and while America wasn't the ground for it, many countries stood by and let it happen for a long time. Jews were also killed based on just one simple factor, were they not?

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by Silverfuel:

There is a difference between stereotyping and saying racially insensitive stuff. Imus said something racially insensitive.

You're the one making the discretion. That discretion is not fact, it's your opinion. And it's wrong.

BULLSHIT! Stereotyping IS NOT the same as racially insensitive. Its not my discretion at all.

From dictionary.com: a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group

That says nothing about being racially insensitive!

And why the fuk are you coming at me with your "I'm Jewish and I was insulted" rhetoric? I didn't even bring it up! I did not like what Michael Ray said. Be careful next time you tell someone to drop their "holier than thou" or whatever bs you are coming up with. Don't mix up people's posts! back the fuk off. Think about what you are posting before you start getting personal.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by codeunknown:

There is a difference between the two statements - one is offensive in a historical context (Michael Ray) and one is offensive in any context (Imus). One is insensitive and likely the result of an ignorance of that historical context (Michael Ray) and one directly and unambiguously demeans black women (Imus). I think what Eny is saying is - if you wanted to give one of them the benefit of the doubt, it would have to be Michael Ray. And I would agree with that.

Both statements are DEMEANING to a group of a people, differentiation is just a different form of BIAS.

Differentiation here is not just a different form of bias, Solace - that itself is a generalization that doesn't mean very much. Look carefully at the two statements. There is a difference between the two statements and it is important. In the context of Imus's comment, its quite clear he knew what he was saying - its not at all reasonable to pretend that he didn't know what nappy meant - and, if he didn't, he would have said so. Wheareas its far more possible that Michael Ray was ignorant of the subtleties of the "crafty," "best airports" and "best lawyers" comments. Saying that one is less offensive than the other given a context is not an example of bias, it is rooted in fact. Neither of these fools is winning a medal anytime soon - but one is clearly more offensive than the other if context, intention and potential malice is taken into account.

Do you really feel that you can say what Michael Ray said and be ignorant of what he was implying? Everyone knows what Michael Ray was implying, just as knowing what Imus was implying was revealed after I found out the slang meaning of nappy. They're both wrong and both either deserve outrage or don't. I'm not going to sit here and be told that Jewish slurs are less than black ones. That's insulting to my intelligence. Hatred breeds many forms and it's showing in this thread.

If you're accusing me of hatred, you're intelligence deserves to be insulted. Calm down for one second and read exactly what I'm writing. First off, I know the subtleties of both comments and, thus, would never, even mistakenly, imply either of them. Personally, I think neither of them should be excused. But, one is worse than the other - and not because of the target population. But rather because the exact words in Imus's comment are less ambiguous.

I'm not accusing you of hatred. That wasn't directed at you -- I'm actually not even sure why I wrote it. My apologies. I appreciate your clarification. I still don't agree, nor do I feel there's much ambiguity about what either one said, but I'm willing to drop it, since I think we're close enough on the matter to stop arguing. Truce?

Posted by bobs3304:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

U're prejudice and don't even realize it.

Oh shutup. I don't know how all white people think just like you don't know how all black people think.


At this point, in the 2000's, it's ridiculous how black people are still whining about how racial comments or slurs in the media.


First of all, since when did black slurs bother non-black people?

Since when did Anti-Jew comments bother non Jewish people?


I'm half Jewish and had no problem with that comment by Ray. It wasn't malicious, maybe a little immature and unclassy, but not racist nor malicious nonetheless.


Everyone's so sensitive nowadays.


What's the difference between a black guy calling a caucasion "white boy" or "cracka", and a white man calling an african american "negro"?


For ANY black person to think THEY'RE not equally outwardly racist, if not more so, just shows how much of a chip on their shoulder they have.


And I use THEY b/c it is a widespread thing.

From reading some of your comments you remind me of this character from the movie the Believer. You of course are qualified to make that judgement since your so intune with the black community. Me personally (not that I feel I should be justifying myself to you) never use the word "cracka" "wigger" or "nigga" "negro" "nigglet" or any other variation of racist language nor do I make racist jokes about other people excepting of course when Im having a case of road rage than the gloves come off . But please if you don't want to sound like a complete racist jackass you should probably refrain from making sweeping judgements on other racial groups or telling people there being "overly sensitive" just a little friendly advice.