Nappy headed hoes

JDR13 · April 17, 2007

elkston said:
You are truly deslusional if you feel that the wealth of this nation owes nothing to the work of slaves. Some whites got wealthy off of slave labor and ripples of that wealth are still passed down through their families to this day.

How incredibly callous of you to reduce slavery down to a "mistake" - a fleeting moment of bad decision making that we should just forgive and forget about it.

Look, I agree that it is not productive for us (blacks) to dwell on this or expect anything from it. Its just not going to happen so we should move on. But it totally burns me up when I see statements like your that trivialize the shameful institution that was slavery in the United States.

Do me a favor bro and keep the 'holier than thou' attitude to yourself. I wasn't trying to sound like I think the memory of slavery should just be swept under the rug and forgotten about. Quite the contrary, I think crimes of the past should always be remembered so they won't be repeated. I was only referring to those people(and I know that it's a small minority) who constantly bring it up and try to throw it in peoples faces for personal gain.

curious · April 17, 2007

nappy headed-racist
hoes-sexist

the 2nd is the much bigger 'error' here. had he just called them hoes or some other non-racial term no one would have noticed (a crime in itself). but he used nappy headed which is clearly racist and a term used more by whites than blacks unlike the term hoes. as i said before the larger problem in this case is the non-shalant attitude of sexist remarks which are even expressed by the average joe sports fan. they're(women) a much smaller percentage of semi-professional/professional athletes and they usually have to overcome all kinds of stereotypes and harrasment to get where they are: not as good as a man, or they're so good they 'are a man'(derogatory). my brother and all the friends i've ever known who have been avid sports friends all take women's sports as a joke, unless its a 'fashion show'. when i played intramurals in college it was the women on my team who not only usually had more 'heart' but they were often times better. imus's racial 'slur' may have had no malice, but his sexually degrading mark certainly intended to express his opinion of females as 2nd class athletes/citizens. personally anyone who is coward enough to "rag" on female athletes for any reason deserves to be kicked in the nuts at the very least. even though for the most part american women have gained a much bigger 'slice of the pie' the playing field is still far from equal and that doesn't even take into account the world where women are easily still the largest minority in voice and power.

fatBastard() · April 17, 2007

It's kind of ironic to be discussing whether or not the sins of our fathers have passed down to us in relation to slavery when we are doing so on a German site founded predominantly by Germans.

Corwin · April 18, 2007

fatBastard() said:
It's kind of ironic to be discussing whether or not the sins of our fathers have passed down to us in relation to slavery when we are doing so on a German site founded predominantly by Germans.

Actually, Myrthos, who founded and is in charge of this site, is Dutch, not German. The main newsposters, are Australian, which while similar sounding to Austrian, is definitely not the same!! Our server may be in Germany, I can't remember, but we are an international site in more ways than one!!

roqua · April 18, 2007

This kind of fits the core point of this thread:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/122134be-ed14-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html

The EU wants to make it illegal to deny the holocaust, punishable with jail time. It makes more sense than the nappy headed hoe thing, but still is a large blow to free speach and people's right to have unpopular opinion that is offensive and might anger/hurt other peoples feelings.

Corwin · April 18, 2007

Next it will be illegal to claim the Earth is flat!! Then where will we be!!!! :biggrin:

bjon045 · April 24, 2007

If those "Nappy-headed hos" were men they would be getting 50 million dollar 5 year contracts plus endorsements in the NBA. I think they should be more concerned about that rather than a light hearted comment in this overly PC world.

ThatGuy · April 24, 2007

I know I'm new here still, but I gotta say, you guys can hold quite a debate!

Guess I might as well pipe in.

On the topic of slavery; I guess I think about it like this: How long do you keep paying back an entire race for something as horrible as slavery? Am I really accountable for the horrors my ancestors and fore fathers carried out?

I'm not as naive as to think that it doesn't have an effect and ripples still today, but hasn't the last 150 years shown a good deal of improvement in that regard? Like you said, 150 years is nothing to history, but haven't the changes been all that much better then? I can't say I have an inside perspective though, I live in a very tolerant town, I even have 'minority' friends who make racist jokes with me all the time, we know it's not anything serious ( though the slavery jokes they made still made me feel bad, damn conscience :-/

)

And I guess I'd have to direct the same train of thought to Curious about sexism, though again I don't have inside perspective, coming from a home where my mother raised me on her own, I have alot of respect for women, but I know the world doesn't think like I do

I guess all I can say is that I hope people keep breaking off from their former generation's mindset, and the world keeps going in the direction it would seem to be, though I'm not an optimist, that sort of change takes much, much time, all we can do is hope our action's have a ripple effect on the next generation.

More on free speech: I think what happened with Imus does show we have not only double standards, but also a sort of "law" beyond the constitution, he was well within his rights to say what he did ( not saying what he said was tasteful, or I like shock jocks), but pressure from society quickly became great, and his employers cut him from the company like a tumor once he became the center of the negative media.

That's from that free market, those listeners piped in about how they felt, and they effectively got him fired, I'm sorry, but I think free speech is great, there's always way's of going around it, like that, so there are atleast sometimes checks and balances.

Chaos from all this Order we've instilled, got to love the constitution

chamr · April 27, 2007

Been a bit busy for a while.... but can't resist...

First off, @roqua, the parts of your post praising immigrants and pointing out that we'd all do ourselves a favor to learn from their example is good stuff. Couldn't agree more.

roqua said:
Now, Chamr. If we break things down into a bell-curve, like it is, and on one end we put Pat Robinson, and on the other Michael Moore, you have to, as a reasonable person, see that there are extremists on both sides, as you said. But, the far-right extremists have no traction, no platform. No one knows what crazy nonsense Pat Robinson is talking about or is condeming. The people that represent the right are far more moderate, where the left is controlled by extremists. So, 2.5% of the population represents a whole half of the curve on the left side, where as on the other side the people representing the curve are part of the curve. The people on the extreme right still vote for them, but thats because they have no one that anyone will listen to representing them.

Sorry, but this is your unsubstantiated opinion. This is a classic "cry wolf" tactic of the right to claim that the media is on the left's side. In reality, the real friction is that conservatives, in general, don't like change and long for the ways of the past whereas journalists are constantly prodding and poking and dredging things up that often highlight inequities and conflicts which, in turn, often contributes to progressive change, just the kind of change conservatives hate. This is the nature of journalism, not any collusion with the left wing, as the right would so love you to believe.

In addition, in case you haven't noticed, big corporations have gobbled up just about every major news outlet. This has resulted in a well documented turn to the middle, and some cases, the right in mass media.

Lastly, why cry for Buchanan and O'Rielly? Don't/Didn't they have their own nationally broadcast TV shows not to mention other outlets such as syndicated columns both on-line and in print? In fact, the right even has it's own news network now in Fox. I hardly think conservatives are underrepresented in the media.

roqua said:
O'Rielly is far from being a far-right winger. He is far more moderate, if for no other reasons then its for ratings, to represent the views of a much, much larger chunk of the population.

This is subjective. While I don't think O'Rielly is a pure-right-wing-nut-job, the dude's solidly conservative and is riding the wave of the right turn in the media I mentioned above.

roqua said:
Why Jesse and Sharpton (I like Sharpton for entertainment purposes) are such bottom feeders is an issue of traction. They get national attention whereas Pat B's e-mail gets crap. Only one side is being fairly represented. And the other side is being controlled by people that it shouldn't.

Sharpton and Jesse are doing what they should be doing, same as Pat Robinson, but only one side has any traction, and neither side should have national attention.

Please see above.

Now, on to JDR13...

JDR13 said:
You're welcome to your opinion, but that statement is a load of crap. Not everyone else in the game would go so far as to cost a radio jock his job over a stupid insult that was not premeditated or used in a malicious manner.
Remember, this guy is a 'shock jock' after all. At the same time, you have black rappers and comedians who say the exact same things on a daily basis with no issue whatsoever.

Here we go again... Hmmmm, last I checked, Imus didn't work for Jesse and Al. He worked for MSNBC and CBS. They fired him. And from all reports I read, it wasn't because the boards got together and said, "hey, ya know what? that Jesse and that Al guy are right. Let's fire him!". It was because they were receiving pressure from advertisers, their own staff, and other figures with power. If you're claiming that all these people didn't know what to think about the subject until Al and Jesse told them, you're operating in a different reality than me.

JDR13 said:
Sharpton and Jackson called the comments "abominable" and "sexist", but why are those words only abominable and sexist to Al and Jesse when spoken by a white man?

Do you have proof that Al and Jesse approve of these terms when used by rappers? Hmmm? Didn't think so. In fact, I do believe (not 100% sure) they've made several speeches asking black performers to clean up their act and avoid being so derogatory to women and blacks.

roqua · April 28, 2007

I couldn't disagree more. And Fox has hands down the best guests. Juan Wlliams, Dick Morris, these are my type of people. Dick Morris is a political genius. Watch him on Hannity And Colmes, they both have to agree with him because he doesn't see things from a perosnal perspective, he sees it from a national perspective. He doesn't look at the American People, he looks at the American voter. He sees the big picture, and not his norrow, slanded view of the picture.

And I've seen Juan, being the only D on a show with 2-4 others, just run circles around them without once spouting a party talking point.

And you are 100% wrong about O'Rielly. He's in it for himself. His agenda is the one that will get him more ratings. Look at the curve, the biggest chunk of the population is what he's going for. You will never see him say anything too outlandish, or take a solid stance that isn't a popular stance.

Now, lets look at this objectively. On one side you have Howard Dean and Michael Moore, on the other Pat Robertson. Who is the media kinder to?

I watch Fox News because I want both sides. Even on O"rielly I get t far more than watching any other news station. I don't want one side. I want the best of boths side's views, so I have more people to disagree with.

I will never agree with popular opinion, and the side I take in almost every arguement is the opposite side of the person I'm argueing takes. I think everyone is wrong (including me, because no one is right), and the extremes of both sides are just out to take peoples freedoms and force them into following their program. My narrative is freedom. And at this point in time the left isn't the one supporting that.

I voted for nadar in 00 because he was the only candadite that was honest in my opinion. He really wants to serve the public. I disgree with him on about every topic you could name, but I respect the hell out of him. In 04 I voted for Bendarick, I respect him and agree with him on most topics, especially involving freedom, so it just made sense.

I truelly believe people that pick a side get blinded. The don't know what their platform is, they just know they hate everyone who doesn't have the d or r they are loking for in front of their names. Its a stupid way to see things.

Look at any political show, besides the few people not blinded by party affilitation, like Williams and Morris, the rest just spout party talking points.

There 100% is a media bias. If you were a hard core conservative in the 50's you would have said the same about McCarthyism. If Dean or Moore were on the right the media would pick them apart, just like they do with Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter can barley open her mouth before every journalist in the nation is ready to pounce. Both sides definitely don't have an equal platform. And if you think fox is pure conservative you are insane. The far right has no traction with fox, or anyone, because they are insane. The only insanity permitted and accepted in this country is the insanity of the far left, who controls the left somehow. Pat B has to constantly lie or hold back his real oppinion in order not to be torn to pieces, the left can just let go and its okay.

chamr · April 28, 2007

A few quick points, as I have to run...

roqua said:
I couldn't disagree more. And Fox has hands down the best guests. Juan Wlliams, Dick Morris, these are my type of people. Dick Morris is a political genius. Watch him on Hannity And Colmes, they both have to agree with him because he doesn't see things from a perosnal perspective, he sees it from a national perspective. He doesn't look at the American People, he looks at the American voter. He sees the big picture, and not his norrow, slanded view of the picture.

And I've seen Juan, being the only D on a show with 2-4 others, just run circles around them without once spouting a party talking point.

What's this got to do with FoxNews' political slant? All the best guests in the world plus Juan don't change the fact that the network continues to present it's news with a decidedly conservative bent. The guests and Juan don't report the news on that station. They just do the "talking head" stuff. Tony Snow, for God's sake, used to wrap up their Sunday show with his conservative editorials. Now's his been paid handsomely with the White House Press Secretary post.

roqua said:
And you are 100% wrong about O'Rielly. He's in it for himself. His agenda is the one that will get him more ratings. Look at the curve, the biggest chunk of the population is what he's going for. You will never see him say anything too outlandish, or take a solid stance that isn't a popular stance.

Don't disagree he's in it for numero uno, but I'll repeat: I don't think he's a far right wing nut, but he's solidly conservative. Are you saying he's a centrist? 'Cause that's just crazy talk...

roqua said:
Now, lets look at this objectively. On one side you have Howard Dean and Michael Moore, on the other Pat Robertson. Who is the media kinder to?

If you really mean Pat Robertson rather than Pat Buchanan, then I'm perfectly comfortable with the media treating Pat Robertson more harshly because the guy is flat out crazy! Didn't he just say a few months ago that AIDS was God's judgment on gays? Nice. Thanks, Pat, but I'll be skipping any worship of that particular God.

If you mean Pat Buchanan, then again, I've seen fair coverage. When was Pat ever roasted by the media? The media has not hesitated to call Michael Moore on his manipulative approach to "documentaries". I've read the mass-distributed AP stories myself. Don't you remember the recent stories about how an edited out clip from one of his films surfaced showing him getting all chummy with the CEO of Nike and then the story about how he really did get to meet Roger of the famous "Roger and Me" that started it all, and yet he still produced the film as if he never had? And I don't know where you were during the 2004 primaries, but for a while you could not escape the replays of the "Screech Heard 'Round the World" that effectively ended any hope Dean had at the nomination. Also, once he became DNC chair, he was quickly grilled by the media for some comment about why Republicans couldn't connect with blacks as well as Democrats because they're all a bunch of fat, rich, white guys, or some such. He had to spend the next couple of days apologizing. So, again, your claim that the media is biased is bunk. It's just a ploy used rather effectively by conservatives to make martyr's/victims of themselves in an attempt to seem more credible.

My narrative is freedom. And at this point in time the left isn't the one supporting that.

Huh? Based on what? The Imus affair? Methinks you're stretching that a bit far...

I voted for nadar in 00 because he was the only candadite that was honest in my opinion. He really wants to serve the public.

Well. Politics really does make strange bedfellows. My vote in 2000 as well.

I truelly believe people that pick a side get blinded. The don't know what their platform is, they just know they hate everyone who doesn't have the d or r they are loking for in front of their names. Its a stupid way to see things.

Absolutely agree.

If Dean or Moore were on the right the media would pick them apart, just like they do with Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter can barley open her mouth before every journalist in the nation is ready to pounce.

Ann's an absolute idiot and deserves any thrashing she gets, all politics aside. She peddles trash and divisiveness and has nothing useful, or even remotely factual to say. She's as about as cynical an opportunist as you can have. She's found a hateful and baseless little money and fame making niche and she's milking it for all it's worth. I can't believe you feel sorry for her.

Both sides definitely don't have an equal platform. And if you think fox is pure conservative you are insane. The far right has no traction with fox, or anyone, because they are insane. The only insanity permitted and accepted in this country is the insanity of the far left, who controls the left somehow. Pat B has to constantly lie or hold back his real oppinion in order not to be torn to pieces, the left can just let go and its okay.

I'm afraid this borders a bit on paranoia. There is no oppression of the great, unheard yet reasonable conservative masses in this nation. I'm not sure what you think the "insane liberals" are running, but as far as I can see it ain't much more than a few biodiesal VW eurovans, Co-Ops and fading communes. Nobody is talking about the power of the "insane liberal lobby". All the media accounts I hear and read are about the voting power of soccer mom's, NASCAR dad's and mega church congregations. Hardly sounds like a liberal crowd to me...

roqua · April 28, 2007

I definitely see fox as a conservative station, just not far right wing. They are as conservative as other sites are liberal. The key difference is quests. Fox has guests from the left that are tier 1. They hold their own. I get the best from both sides. The more perspectives I get, the more able, and educated an opinion I can form. And the opinions I form are usually never the ones either side is preaching.

It s a matter of perspective. I lot of europeans see very little differnce between Democrats and Republicans. The bell curve in France is scewed to the left, and even more so in Holland. Their left is far more left than ours, their right is far more left.

Don't disagree he's in it for numero uno, but I'll repeat: I don't think he's a far right wing nut, but he's solidly conservative. Are you saying he's a centrist? 'Cause that's just crazy talk...

I agree. What I am saying is he could actually be far more conservative, or far more liberal, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what he presents as his public disposition, and that a position of a moderate.

If you really mean Pat Robertson rather than Pat Buchanan, then I'm perfectly comfortable with the media treating Pat Robertson more harshly because the guy is flat out crazy! Didn't he just say a few months ago that AIDS was God's judgment on gays? Nice. Thanks, Pat, but I'll be skipping any worship of that particular God.

I agree, but what you aren't seeing is that he is the far right. He represents a small, crazy part of the population. The people on the far right and close to the far right, see the stuff the extreme left spouts as just as crazy. I see both sides eaqually as crazy. They both spout a bunch of unjustifiable and crazy nonsense. They are both blind and utterly insane. Beyond reasoning. Cultists. Zeolots. They closer you are to eaither side, the more willing you are to accept their propaganda.

Huh? Based on what? The Imus affair? Methinks you're stretching that a bit far...

Not just that, a million examples. They want to use the hudical branch to force their agenda. They want to make everything a civil rights issue to by pass the legislative branch. They want to put their agenda into law, and are a lot closer to it than the far right will ever be.

A guy in Boston, who was cleaning windows on a scafold, was attacked by a pigeon and killed it. He was fired and arrested for doing that, because rich, crazy white people run Boston. I could go on all day quoting examples and issues. Maybe its just a matter of geography. Now, when I visted amsterdam I never felt more free, and that is far more socialist than here. But the left here do not love freedom like the people in AMsterdam, they are puritans that want to force an agenda and thier way of life on you. While in amsterdam it was much more an open and relaxed atmosphere. Thats how you do it. Live and let live.

Ann's an absolute idiot and deserves any thrashing she gets, all politics aside. She peddles trash and divisiveness and has nothing useful, or even remotely factual to say. She's as about as cynical an opportunist as you can have. She's found a hateful and baseless little money and fame making niche and she's milking it for all it's worth. I can't believe you feel sorry for her.

She gets it while her eqivalents on the left get a free ride and the right to say just as inflamatory things to just as many people that take offense and disagree. This really articulates that you see things skewed. You don't like her so it's fair. This same thing could be said to far more people on the left, except they don't get reamed by the media, because the media agrees with them.

I'm afraid this borders a bit on paranoia. There is no oppression of the great, unheard yet reasonable conservative masses in this nation. I'm not sure what you think the "insane liberals" are running, but as far as I can see it ain't much more than a few biodiesal VW eurovans, Co-Ops and fading communes. Nobody is talking about the power of the "insane liberal lobby". All the media accounts I hear and read are about the voting power of soccer mom's, NASCAR dad's and mega church congregations. Hardly sounds like a liberal crowd to me...

There definitely is. You really are seeing things skewed. If the same government control were put on the Iraq war as the coverage of WWII, the public perception of the war would be very different. How can my friends (all democrats) that served over in Iraq, disagree with everything the media states or covered that they had first hand knowledge or took part in the events of? Why does the soldier's story get unheard and overlooked, or discredited? Unless people think soldiers are too stupid to know anything. I love that most of my friends now know to distrust the media and sees they have an agenda.

Name another major right-leaning outlet besides fox? You can't. There isn't one. Out of all the options, there is one right-leaning one. That means people are getting spoon fed an news by people with agendas, and mostkly aren't getting any side of the story but one.

You know the verbage used, the context used, has an impact on peoples perception.

Like that Nazi guy said, "Say any lie loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe it."

What happened to free thinking and being actually open minded? People have their mind made up before they even hear a speaker, read a story or view an article now. They just sop up what they are trained to believe and discard the rest. People are more sheep like than ever. Zombie cult memebers incapable of seeing that everyone's opinion is valid, and having a different opinion doesn't make you bad or evil. EVeryone is wrong, and everyone is right. Stop trying to make others conform to agendas and your opinion, and just enjoy and love diversity of opinion (not you, everyone).

JDR13 · April 28, 2007

chamr said:
Now, on to JDR13...

Here we go again... Hmmmm, last I checked, Imus didn't work for Jesse and Al. He worked for MSNBC and CBS. They fired him. And from all reports I read, it wasn't because the boards got together and said, "hey, ya know what? that Jesse and that Al guy are right. Let's fire him!". It was because they were receiving pressure from advertisers, their own staff, and other figures with power. If you're claiming that all these people didn't know what to think about the subject until Al and Jesse told them, you're operating in a different reality than me.

I guess we are in different realities then, because Imus wasn't fired until CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves met with Sharpton and Jackson shortly before the announcement was made, not to mention the fact that they were the most prominent people who openly campaigned for his firing.

Do you have proof that Al and Jesse approve of these terms when used by
rappers? Hmmm? Didn't think so. In fact, I do believe (not 100% sure) they've made several speeches asking black performers to clean up their act and avoid being so derogatory to women and blacks.[/QUOTE]

That's nice, but did they go so far as to say they would picket the studios where those people worked, like they did to Imus? Hmmm? Didn't think so.

In fact, they never said anything about rappers until after they were widely criticized for not having done so after making such a big deal about Imus's remarks.

Squeek · May 4, 2007

I just saw Imus' attorney being interviewed on television. Imus is about to sue CBS for $120 million. It sounds like he has a very good case too.

Apparently, Imus was put under a $40 million dollar contract recently that was very carefully considered by both sides. It contained acknowledgements of Imus' audacious style and stipulated a process for dealing with comments that might cross the line. There was a delay capability implemented where he could be censored, and he could be fired within five days of causing a controversy.

CBS didn't censor him, and they didn't fire him until 14 days after the incident. It looks like Imus isn't the only one who blew it. CBS blew it too. It looks like CBS will have to pay for its mistake.

dteowner · May 4, 2007

I find it hilarious that CBS, after bending over for Al and Jesse, will take one in the can from Imus.

Cleric · May 6, 2007

It's only what they deserve.

Dez · May 8, 2007

I'll never get used to your crazy lawsuits.. I know they won't usually pass, but really even thinking of compensation of 120 million dollars from a stupid mess like this is just crazy

txa1265 · May 8, 2007

Dez said:
I'll never get used to your crazy lawsuits.. I know they won't usually pass, but really even thinking of compensation of 120 million dollars from a stupid mess like this is just crazy

Looking at the specifics I agree, but as a 'breach of contract', asking 3x your salary to cover legal fees, etc is not unreasonable.

I mean, it is certainly more reasonable someone who started smoking in the last 25 years suing because they got cancer!

Nappy headed hoes

JDR13

SasqWatch

curious

liberty or license

fatBastard()

Hello, I'm a Zombaholic

Corwin

On The Razorblade of Life

roqua

Sentinel

Corwin

On The Razorblade of Life

bjon045

SasqWatch

ThatGuy

Watcher

chamr

Mounted Highborn

roqua

Sentinel

chamr

Mounted Highborn

roqua

Sentinel

JDR13

SasqWatch

Squeek

connoisseur of tidbits

dteowner

Shoegazer

Cleric

Watchdog

Dez

Man with the hat

txa1265

SasqWatch