"burn your house down… brew you a cup of tea in the still-glowing embers" - good and evil in people

1234579

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It must be nice being so perfect. Still, try to spare a thought for those of us who do actually make mistakes from time to time.

    There's a massive space between "perfect" and "uses offensive slurs so might get caught using one", which I call "being a decent human being".
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    He also got into therapy, and publicly admitted he's a sex addict.

    I suspect in a post MeToo era - that would not have been the end of it (and rightfully so).
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    No. The K-word is not a word I ever use apart from as an example of a word I wouldn't use, paradox notwithstanding. It is most definitely not something that might slip out if my filters were down, because it wouldn't be there to be filtered in the first place, on account of my not being antisemetic.

    Let me emphasize what Karl says here, because he's right, and Russ is wrong.

    There are a lot of offensive words that I recognize - I know what they mean, why they are offensive, and I might have heard them used - but I do not use them. There are no circumstances in which I might refer to a Jewish person as a "K***" or a black person as a "N*****", even in the heat of the moment, when I'm really angry with that person, because those aren't words I use.

    Russ may want to consider the use-mention distinction.

    On the other hand, I have, in the heat of the moment, told a colleague at work to "Fuck Off". This is not appropriate language for the workplace, and the guy that I yelled at was merely the final straw, and not the greatest offender who was interrupting me while I was trying to solve a time-critical problem, but they are words that I use on rare occasions, and so out they came.


  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    But you were at work.

    Your Job was not communicating to thousands

    (I think)



    Still.
    I m everso glad that my worst moments were not live broadcast
    😒
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    To say that a man in his fifties has lived through changes in attitudes to homosexuality shouldn't be any great revelation.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Is there any evidence that Mr. Brennaman's attitudes towards homosexuality have changed in the last fifty years?
    Russ wrote: »
    If - in circumstances involving some level of pressure, or some level of alcohol consumption, or both together . . .

    Again, is there any evidence that Mr. Brennaman was drinking on the job? Even if so, it's long been understood that alcohol lowers inhibitions, it doesn't make people homophobic.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Even if so, it's long been understood that alcohol lowers inhibitions, it doesn't make people homophobic.

    No, but it might make you more likely to use a word you wouldn't ordinarily use but that those around you are using freely. Especially if you're the sort of person who code-switches almost subconsciously.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I for one would mightily enjoy hearing Brennaman try to excuse his homophobic slurs by explaining that he was drunk at work.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    But you were at work.

    Your Job was not communicating to thousands

    No - only about a dozen people got to witness my little intemperate outburst.

    My point, and Karl's, was that words that slip out in the heat of the moment are words that you use (or at least think). I don't swear all that much, but I do swear sometimes, and I think sweary thoughts sometimes. So telling my colleague to "Fuck Off", although rude and inappropriate, was also a natural part of my language.

    Similarly, the fact that Mr. Brennaman brought out his homophobic comments betrays the fact that that is how he thinks. Homophobic slurs form a natural part of his vocabulary and thoughts - he's just usually better at not using them on TV. I'd lay good odds that if you were a fly on the wall at Mr. Brennaman's favoured bar, or his poker game or whatever, then you'd find that language in frequent use.

    IOW, I'm a short-tempered sweary man who is usually quite good at hiding it. Brennaman is a homophobe who is usually quite good at hiding it at work.

    (ETA: it's not just his use of a slur - it's the fact that he referred to a city as "the <slur> capital of the world" that really betrays his thought patterns. )
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
    You know that doesn't make any actual point?

    "Slick Willie" was *repentant* when he was CAUGHT ...
    Again, so what? What does that have to do with the discussion of the announcer about whom we are speaking?

    "Repentance" after/when/BECAUSE having been CAUGHT may or may not be genuine ...
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
    You know that doesn't make any actual point?

    "Slick Willie" was *repentant* when he was CAUGHT ...
    Again, so what? What does that have to do with the discussion of the announcer about whom we are speaking?

    "Repentance" after/when/BECAUSE having been CAUGHT may or may not be genuine ...
    Again, Clinton has not a damn thing to do with this sports announcer.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
    You know that doesn't make any actual point?

    "Slick Willie" was *repentant* when he was CAUGHT ...
    Again, so what? What does that have to do with the discussion of the announcer about whom we are speaking?

    "Repentance" after/when/BECAUSE having been CAUGHT may or may not be genuine ...
    Again, Clinton has not a damn thing to do with this sports announcer.

    Ah ...
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.

    Yep. And now that one slip, that one careless moment, is going to become the defining moment of his whole life in the public perception.

    We should all thank god above that our own careless moments don’t come at so high a price. And maybe have a little sympathy for those whose do.

    1. Boo
    2. Fucking
    3. Hoo

    Have you never had a careless moment yourself? Never said something that others may find offensive?

    I've never believed something so offensive that saying it out loud would get me fired.
  • It must be nice being so perfect. Still, try to spare a thought for those of us who do actually make mistakes from time to time.

    Hatred is not an occasional mistake. It's an ongoing attitude, and in this day and age hatred of LGBTQ+ people is chosen. It's not like he said "oh fuck" with the mike on. That's a mistake one makes from time to time. To rank letting your hate flag fly similarly to the accidental "fuck" is a category error.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It must be nice being so perfect. Still, try to spare a thought for those of us who do actually make mistakes from time to time.

    Hatred is not an occasional mistake. It's an ongoing attitude, and in this day and age hatred of LGBTQ+ people is chosen. It's not like he said "oh fuck" with the mike on. That's a mistake one makes from time to time. To rank letting your hate flag fly similarly to the accidental "fuck" is a category error.

    I agree ...

    And even many outright psychopaths over time eventually learn to BEHAVE/speak/live *as*if* they are normal persons ...
    A human being does not NEED to be a prisoner (eventual ironic victim) of her/his own hard-wired instincts ...
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    My point, and Karl's, was that words that slip out in the heat of the moment are words that you use (or at least think).

    Yes. Words that one part of the brain uses, even when the part of the brain that is censoring one's speech replaces them before utterance.

    The fact that Karl typed the K-word, suitably disguised, is evidence that the one part of his brain has it in his storehouse of words that are available for use when he wants to communicate. And also evidence that the other, censoring, part of his brain was functioning.

    I fully believe Karl when he says that he would not use that word of Jews in general because he has no negative attitude towards Jews in general.

    But it's there in his vocabulary, ready for use (perhaps as an insult for a despicable individual who coincidentally happens to have Jewish ancestry. Or perhaps as a rhyme for "like" in some sort of word game).

    And I'm also happy to believe that Karl fully intends that his self-censor should prevent him from using the word in either of those contexts, or in any other context.
    I don't swear all that much, but I do swear sometimes, and I think sweary thoughts sometimes. So telling my colleague to "Fuck Off", although rude and inappropriate, was also a natural part of my language.
    I can identify with that. It's not a phrase I want to ever use (*), but I've mixed enough with people who do use it that it's there in my vocabulary waiting to emerge, and only self-censorship prevents this.
    Homophobic slurs form a natural part of his vocabulary and thoughts - he's just usually better at not using them on TV. I'd lay good odds that if you were a fly on the wall at Mr. Brennaman's favoured bar, or his poker game or whatever, then you'd find that language in frequent use.

    You may well be right. Seems to me totally normal for men of a certain age to use language within an off-duty all-male group that they would not use with ladies present or in their professional persona.

    Which would include telling each other to (or more likely telling each other that they had told others to) F**k off.

    If you say that Mr Brennaman was at fault in using in public a word that he should use only to his poker-playing buddies in private, then yes he was and he's apologised for his unprofessionalism and it's the sort of slip that could happen to anyone.

    But some here are saying the opposite - that he is at fault for being a person who uses to his poker-playing buddies language which doesn't meet the standards of what it is (now) socially acceptable to say in public.

    Which seems like only one step short of the Thought Police...



    (*) and not a word I want my wife to hear me using...
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    But it's there in his vocabulary, ready for use (perhaps as an insult for a despicable individual who coincidentally happens to have Jewish ancestry. Or perhaps as a rhyme for "like" in some sort of word game).

    No, it really isn't. I have a very low view of using ethnic or any other slurs when insults are called for.

    It's as if you imagine we're all just self-censoring closet racist misogynist homophobes.
  • Russ wrote: »
    If you say that Mr Brennaman was at fault in using in public a word that he should use only to his poker-playing buddies in private, then yes he was and he's apologised for his unprofessionalism and it's the sort of slip that could happen to anyone.

    As I said above, the primary pivot here is at-will employment and the rights of employees vs employers.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    But it's there in his vocabulary, ready for use (perhaps as an insult for a despicable individual who coincidentally happens to have Jewish ancestry. Or perhaps as a rhyme for "like" in some sort of word game).

    No, it really isn't. I have a very low view of using ethnic or any other slurs when insults are called for.

    It's as if you imagine we're all just self-censoring closet racist misogynist homophobes.
    Russ' argument is bullshit on another level as well. An ethnic slur, used at an individual level or not, still is predicated on the group being lesser.
    And a Jewish arsehole isn't an arsehole because they are Jewish.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But it's there in his vocabulary, ready for use (perhaps as an insult for a despicable individual who coincidentally happens to have Jewish ancestry. Or perhaps as a rhyme for "like" in some sort of word game).

    No, it really isn't. I have a very low view of using ethnic or any other slurs when insults are called for.

    It's as if you imagine we're all just self-censoring closet racist misogynist homophobes.
    Russ' argument is bullshit on another level as well. An ethnic slur, used at an individual level or not, still is predicated on the group being lesser.
    And a Jewish arsehole isn't an arsehole because they are Jewish.

    Well, that's part of the reason I have a low view of using them.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    One of the most consistent things to come up in discussions like this is certain commenters' apparent horror at the idea that a rich and/or famous white man would ever suffer a consequence for his actions. For example, we have Mr. Brennaman who has, as of now, been temporarily suspended from his job after his employer found out he was the kind of person to use homophobic slurs on live broadcasts. (His employers had apparently been operating under the assumption that Mr. Brennaman would not do something like that, in addition to following other rules of conduct for on-air personalities.) How is this temporary suspension described?
    Because saying something someone else finds offensive is an evil for which no punishment can possibly be too much, and that once done automatically overrides everything else that person may ever have done.

    So a temporary suspension for insulting a wide swath of his audience is regarded as some kind of maximalist cruelty rather than a broadcaster enforcing some standards of decency among its talent.

    Or another example of describing a small penalty in hysterically maximal terms:
    Brings to mind that famous radio guy, Don Imus,
    who was heard commenting on a college women's basketball team,
    "a lot of nappy-headed hos" there ...

    It essentially ended his career in 2007 ...

    So yes, Don Imus used his platform to call a group of student athletes whores, and did so in racially-charged terms. @Fr Teilhard claims this "ended his career", a term which usually means either the person never worked again (think Bernie Maddoff) or the person had to find some other way to make a living in some radically different field (like the way OJ Simpson's acting career came to a screeching halt in 1994).

    When it was pointed out that Imus' broadcast career continued for over a decade after it supposedly "ended", this was the response:
    Don Imus never again had the glowing reputation that he had before he was caught ... He lost $$$ and status over his self revelation ...

    Got that? Imus is entitled to his position and the esteem of the community, and anything which deprives him of his deserved income and reputation is inherently unjust. Anything which results in a negative change in Imus' status quo is the equivalent of "end[ing] his career". (For the record, Imus already had a reputation for using racial slurs before this particular incident so I'm not sure his reputation, "glowing" or otherwise, took that much of a hit.)

    This kind of universal forgiveness for any transgression isn't for everyone, though. Many of the folks who claim that holding Brennaman or Imus accountable for their own actions are the same folks who endorse state sanctioned police programs to deliberately hassle non-white men and extol the benefits of maximal law enforcement against trivial offenses committed by the poor.

    In other words, if you're a white man in a position of some prominence or wealth, any kind of accountability is too much. If you're a non-white man living somewhere like New York City, no form of accountability is too severe.
    Russ wrote: »
    But some here are saying the opposite - that he is at fault for being a person who uses to his poker-playing buddies language which doesn't meet the standards of what it is (now) socially acceptable to say in public.

    Which seems like only one step short of the Thought Police...

    This is the problem of the preferred first speaker, where norms of civility are imposed on responses to speech that aren't imposed on the original speech. In this case @Russ argues that it's okay for Mr. Brennaman to express his contempt of homosexuals, but that anyone finding Mr. Brennaman's homophobia contemptible is part of the "Thought Police".

    Mr. Brennaman gets to have an opinion. This is called "free speech".

    His critics do not. If they do it's called "thought policing".
  • Don’t know about anyone else

    But I am saying that the person in question was unprofessional.

    I get that it was A Mistake

    But coz of the nature of his Mistake, ie public and professional

    Well, heads roll
    Consequences and all that.






  • Just remember: it's not Cancel Culture unless it comes from the French region of Cancelle. Otherwise it's just Sparkling Consequences.

    Yes, we all make mistakes in our public and private lives. And we have to take the consequences for those mistakes. Passive-aggressive comments like "I'm glad you're perfect" are simply a way of saying "I don't want to have consequences because I don't like them."
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Because saying something someone else finds offensive is an evil for which no punishment can possibly be too much, and that once done automatically overrides everything else that person may ever have done.

    So a temporary suspension for insulting a wide swath of his audience is regarded as some kind of maximalist cruelty rather than a broadcaster enforcing some standards of decency among its talent.

    Or another example of describing a small penalty in hysterically maximal terms:

    And as above; companies in general and media organisations in particular have been getting rid of staff for ever for all sorts of things (for instance; one of the columnists at The Times was sacked in the past month for taking a slightly too critical line on Johnson, without murmur from the free-speech brigade).

    If there is an issue it's one of the balance of power between employers and employees, but it's far easier to complain that "those relativists are too damn moralistic"
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Hatred is not an occasional mistake.

    An occasional mistake whereby offensive language is used is not in and of itself evidence of hatred.
  • The guy deliberately said "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world".

    That's not something that's going to trip off the tongue in a Freudian slip kind of way. Honestly, again, you're just making excuses for people (and presumably yourself) to avoid the consequences of their actions.

    If that's your schtick, then okay, but the rest of us don't have to play along.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The guy deliberately said "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world".

    Depending on context, that might be a perfectly reasonable comment. For example, "I love [city] - it's one of the [homophobic slur] capitals of the world! I go there every year for the Pride March!".

    I have no idea what the context of the remark was, of course.
    That's not something that's going to trip off the tongue in a Freudian slip kind of way. Honestly, again, you're just making excuses for people (and presumably yourself) to avoid the consequences of their actions.

    We disagree about what those consequences should be when the action is someone privately (or so he thought) expressing a personal opinion. But then I've always been from the "believe what you like so long as you treat everyone else properly" school of thought. A checkout operator might be silently wishing I would drop dead in the most painful way possible, and have a voodoo doll of me at home that he stabs repeatedly every evening, but as long as he rings up my items correctly and doesn't short change me I couldn't care less. That's all I need or want from him.
  • Russ wrote: »
    The fact that Karl typed the K-word, suitably disguised, is evidence that the one part of his brain has it in his storehouse of words that are available for use when he wants to communicate. And also evidence that the other, censoring, part of his brain was functioning.

    No, it really isn't. Please go away and understand the use-mention distinction.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The guy deliberately said "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world".

    Depending on context, that might be a perfectly reasonable comment. For example, "I love [city] - it's one of the [homophobic slur] capitals of the world! I go there every year for the Pride March!".

    I have no idea what the context of the remark was, of course.
    It is a shame he didn't have the opportunity to put his words in context. Twice. :rolleyes"
    We disagree about what those consequences should be when the action is someone privately (or so he thought) expressing a personal opinion.
    It was not private. He was at work, a broadcaster doesn't clock out in between calling plays during the game.

  • Russ wrote: »
    If you say that Mr Brennaman was at fault in using in public a word that he should use only to his poker-playing buddies in private, then yes he was and he's apologised for his unprofessionalism and it's the sort of slip that could happen to anyone.
    No - it's the sort of slip that could happen to any homophobic bigot. Rather like people who "accidentally" call a black person the n-word in an argument are people who in the privacy of their own thoughts, think of black people as n-words.
    Russ wrote: »
    But some here are saying the opposite - that he is at fault for being a person who uses to his poker-playing buddies language which doesn't meet the standards of what it is (now) socially acceptable to say in public.

    Yes, Mr Brennaman is at fault if he uses homophobic language at the poker table. Because being homophobic is a fault. It's not a crime to think that gay people are inferior in some way, but it is most certainly a fault. Lots of ways of thinking are faults. People who think racist thoughts are at fault. People who think uncharitably of others are at fault.

    Not all faults are crimes.

    Let me be very clear.

    Mr Brennaman should not use homophobic slurs at all. He shouldn't do it on TV, and he shouldn't do it in his poker game.

    People who use that kind of language about other people are homophobic bigots. If he uses that kind of language in private with his mates, he betrays his bigotry for them to see. If they don't mind, and don't upbraid him for it, it's probably because they're bigots as well, and agree with him, or because he's the high-status individual in his social group, and they're all scared of standing up to him.

    But the potential consequences of expressing your bigotry in private are only social ones. If you come to my house and use that kind of language, you will be told to stop. Persist, and you'll be leaving, and won't be invited back.

    Do it on TV, and millions of people won't invite you back.
  • We disagree about what those consequences should be when the action is someone privately (or so he thought) expressing a personal opinion. But then I've always been from the "believe what you like so long as you treat everyone else properly" school of thought. A checkout operator might be silently wishing I would drop dead in the most painful way possible, and have a voodoo doll of me at home that he stabs repeatedly every evening, but as long as he rings up my items correctly and doesn't short change me I couldn't care less. That's all I need or want from him.

    I don't disagree with your scenario. But what the commentator did was the equivalent of handing me my receipt and while I'm still putting my card back in my wallet, saying to their colleague loudly enough for me and their manager to hear "I fucking hate that guy, I hope he burns in Hell."

    The weasel-word there is 'silently'. He wasn't silent. Everyone heard. Consequences.
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    One of the most consistent things to come up in discussions like this is certain commenters' apparent horror at the idea that a rich and/or famous white man would ever suffer a consequence for his actions. For example, we have Mr. Brennaman who has, as of now, been temporarily suspended from his job after his employer found out he was the kind of person to use homophobic slurs on live broadcasts. (His employers had apparently been operating under the assumption that Mr. Brennaman would not do something like that, in addition to following other rules of conduct for on-air personalities.) How is this temporary suspension described?


    Or another example of describing a small penalty in hysterically maximal terms:
    Brings to mind that famous radio guy, Don Imus,
    who was heard commenting on a college women's basketball team,
    "a lot of nappy-headed hos" there ...

    It essentially ended his career in 2007 ...

    So yes, Don Imus used his platform to call a group of student athletes whores, and did so in racially-charged terms. @Fr Teilhard claims this "ended his career", a term which usually means either the person never worked again (think Bernie Maddoff) or the person had to find some other way to make a living in some radically different field (like the way OJ Simpson's acting career came to a screeching halt in 1994).

    When it was pointed out that Imus' broadcast career continued for over a decade after it supposedly "ended", this was the response:
    Don Imus never again had the glowing reputation that he had before he was caught ... He lost $$$ and status over his self revelation ...

    Got that? Imus is entitled to his position and the esteem of the community, and anything which deprives him of his deserved income and reputation is inherently unjust. Anything which results in a negative change in Imus' status quo is the equivalent of "end[ing] his career". (For the record, Imus already had a reputation for using racial slurs before this particular incident so I'm not sure his reputation, "glowing" or otherwise, took that much of a hit.)


    In other words, if you're a white man in a position of some prominence or wealth, any kind of accountability is too much. If you're a non-white man living somewhere like New York City, no form of accountability is too severe.


    Excuse me ... ???

    No ...
    I do not hold the views you attribute to me ...

    Frankly, not having been a fan of anything re: Don Imus before his Rutgers episode, I had only heard his name and had no idea who he was ... but NO, he did not just skate through the aftermath of his crude racist remarks (that time) ... as if nothing had happened ...

    But ... What ... ??? ... You seem to suggest that he should have spent the rest of his life "in the stocks" in a public square so that passers-by could spit on him ... ???

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Excuse me ... ???

    No ...
    I do not hold the views you attribute to me ...

    Frankly, not having been a fan of anything re: Don Imus before his Rutgers episode, I had only heard his name and had no idea who he was ... but NO, he did not just skate through the aftermath of his crude racist remarks (that time) ... as if nothing had happened ...

    But ... What ... ??? ... You seem to suggest that he should have spent the rest of his life "in the stocks" in a public square so that passers-by could spit on him ... ???

    I'm saying that claiming an incident "ended his career" is a gross mischaracterization of someone who continued to work in his chosen profession for over a decade after his career supposedly ended. I'm also suggesting that this kind of exaggerated (in multiple senses) sense of grievance any time a somewhat wealthy and/or prominent white man is held accountable for anything is a very clear way of communicating that someone like Imus can act with impunity and that anyone who calls him on his racism (e.g. the Rutgers women's basketball team) is out of line.

    Are there cases where blame and punishment goes too far? Probably. Are there enough of them that those stoking the outrage over any form of accountability don't have to make shit up in order to not seem ridiculous? Apparently not.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Excuse me ... ???

    No ...
    I do not hold the views you attribute to me ...

    Frankly, not having been a fan of anything re: Don Imus before his Rutgers episode, I had only heard his name and had no idea who he was ... but NO, he did not just skate through the aftermath of his crude racist remarks (that time) ... as if nothing had happened ...

    But ... What ... ??? ... You seem to suggest that he should have spent the rest of his life "in the stocks" in a public square so that passers-by could spit on him ... ???

    I'm saying that claiming an incident "ended his career" is a gross mischaracterization of someone who continued to work in his chosen profession for over a decade after his career supposedly ended. I'm also suggesting that this kind of exaggerated (in multiple senses) sense of grievance any time a somewhat wealthy and/or prominent white man is held accountable for anything is a very clear way of communicating that someone like Imus can act with impunity and that anyone who calls him on his racism (e.g. the Rutgers women's basketball team) is out of line.

    Are there cases where blame and punishment goes too far? Probably. Are there enough of them that those stoking the outrage over any form of accountability don't have to make shit up in order to not seem ridiculous? Apparently not.

    I wrote that the scandal ... ESSENTIALLY ended his career ..."

    As I indicated (above) I was never his fan and had no idea who he was before the scandal broke ...
    AFTERWARD he lost considerable status and $$$ ...

    Again ...
    What do you suggest SHOULD have happened to him ... ???
    Prison ... ???
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Excuse me ... ???

    No ...
    I do not hold the views you attribute to me ...

    Frankly, not having been a fan of anything re: Don Imus before his Rutgers episode, I had only heard his name and had no idea who he was ... but NO, he did not just skate through the aftermath of his crude racist remarks (that time) ... as if nothing had happened ...

    But ... What ... ??? ... You seem to suggest that he should have spent the rest of his life "in the stocks" in a public square so that passers-by could spit on him ... ???

    I'm saying that claiming an incident "ended his career" is a gross mischaracterization of someone who continued to work in his chosen profession for over a decade after his career supposedly ended. I'm also suggesting that this kind of exaggerated (in multiple senses) sense of grievance any time a somewhat wealthy and/or prominent white man is held accountable for anything is a very clear way of communicating that someone like Imus can act with impunity and that anyone who calls him on his racism (e.g. the Rutgers women's basketball team) is out of line.

    Are there cases where blame and punishment goes too far? Probably. Are there enough of them that those stoking the outrage over any form of accountability don't have to make shit up in order to not seem ridiculous? Apparently not.

    I wrote that the scandal ... ESSENTIALLY ended his career ..."

    Yeah, you made it sound like the Hollywood blacklist. Instead, Imus got a new gig with a different broadcaster eight months after his career supposedly "ESSENTIALLY ended". A lot of laid off American workers would jump at having their careers "ended" like that.
    As I indicated (above) I was never his fan and had no idea who he was before the scandal broke ...
    AFTERWARD he lost considerable status and $$$ ...

    Did he? How much? You seem like quite the expert on Imus' finances for someone who claims to not be a fan. How big a hit did his income take, and how did his post-Rutgers-incident income compare to the median income of an on-air radio personality in the 2007-2018 timeframe?
    Again ...
    What do you suggest SHOULD have happened to him ... ???
    Prison ... ???

    Why do I have to suggest anything? You're the one bemoaning the rank unfairness visited upon Don Imus for using his broadcast platform to demean a bunch of student athletes who'd done nothing to him. Being forced to find a new employer after fucking up on the job is not the injustice you make it out to be.

    I will point out that even if his career had actually ended (instead of "essentially ended") when he was 67 years old, that's not exactly the tragedy of a career cut short. In a lot of places that's called "retirement age".
  • Crœsos wrote: »




    You're the one bemoaning the rank unfairness visited upon Don Imus for using his broadcast platform to demean a bunch of student athletes who'd done nothing to him. Being forced to find a new employer after fucking up on the job is not the injustice you make it out to be.




    No ...

    I ... HOLD ... NO ... SUCH ... VIEWS ...

    I am simply commenting on a situation of a guy being caught in a public scandal and receiving SOME consequences for it ...



  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    You're the one bemoaning the rank unfairness visited upon Don Imus for using his broadcast platform to demean a bunch of student athletes who'd done nothing to him. Being forced to find a new employer after fucking up on the job is not the injustice you make it out to be.
    No ...

    I ... HOLD ... NO ... SUCH ... VIEWS ...

    I am simply commenting on a situation of a guy being caught in a public scandal and receiving SOME consequences for it ...

    Hey, if you don't hold any views on it, why the ridiculously pro-Imus exaggeration of "ESSENTIALLY ended his career"? Why not simply go with the truth, that Imus had to find a new employer and that it took him about eight months? I know it doesn't sound as dramatic, but accuracy is important.

    According to Celebrity Net Worth, Imus had a salary of $20 million with Cumulus (his final employer). At least I think that's the case. CNW's prose form is a little hard to pin down. At any rate, maybe you can explain why you claim he lost income and status (because you seem to think a shock jock loses status by saying offensive things). Got some kind of inside information on Imus' finances you'd like to share with us? And maybe expand on why this alleged loss was so unjust?
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    And maybe expand on why this alleged loss was so unjust?

    THOSE are YOUR words, not MINE ...

    YOU are the one making that characterization, not I ...

    So I feel no need to "expand" on YOUR claim
    or to explain it or to defend it ...
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    what the commentator did was the equivalent of handing me my receipt and while I'm still putting my card back in my wallet, saying to their colleague loudly enough for me and their manager to hear "I fucking hate that guy, I hope he burns in Hell."

    The weasel-word there is 'silently'. He wasn't silent. Everyone heard. Consequences.

    If you say that he has some sort of right to think what he likes and to subvocalise his feelings, but that he crosses a line when this is no longer silent, then yes I agree.

    And yes, making mistakes has consequences. In this example, his employer has lost a customer, and is at risk of losing reputation in the community. I'd envisage some sort of restitution. Employer gives offended customer a full and gracious apology and a credit note to spend in store, and deducts the cost from employee's wages. And then everybody gets on with life.

    In other words, we all make mistakes, and forgiveness and reconciliation are good. Regardless of who's rich and who's poor and who's black and who's white.

    That's a bit different from saying that the employee is evil for silently thinking that anyone should burn in Hell. And thank goodness he inadvertently vocalised his thought because now we know what sort of person he is. And we don't want that sort of person and if he's sacked and blacklisted so he can never work again then that is a just consequence.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Or the employer might ask whether they really want someone working for them if that is their real view about the customers. Even if they manage to put a guard on their mouth (and the evidence suggests they are not fully effective at doing that), what will their attitude and behaviour be like.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    We disagree about what those consequences should be when the action is someone privately (or so he thought) expressing a personal opinion. But then I've always been from the "believe what you like so long as you treat everyone else properly" school of thought. A checkout operator might be silently wishing I would drop dead in the most painful way possible, and have a voodoo doll of me at home that he stabs repeatedly every evening, but as long as he rings up my items correctly and doesn't short change me I couldn't care less. That's all I need or want from him.

    I don't disagree with your scenario. But what the commentator did was the equivalent of handing me my receipt and while I'm still putting my card back in my wallet, saying to their colleague loudly enough for me and their manager to hear "I fucking hate that guy, I hope he burns in Hell."

    Point made and accepted. I still think it's harsh that someone can lose their job over such a mistake though.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Or the employer might ask whether they really want someone working for them if that is their real view about the customers. Even if they manage to put a guard on their mouth (and the evidence suggests they are not fully effective at doing that), what will their attitude and behaviour be like.

    I laugh. Have you ever worked in a customer-facing role? Talking shit about the customers, their appearance, their clothing, and whatever stupid fuckshit asstwattery they've got up to this time is par for the course, so long as it's done off the shop floor.

    Hell, I work in Higher Education and it's a common theme around the staff rooms that the job would be so much easier if it weren't for all those dumbass students fucking everything up all the time.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    We disagree about what those consequences should be when the action is someone privately (or so he thought) expressing a personal opinion. But then I've always been from the "believe what you like so long as you treat everyone else properly" school of thought. A checkout operator might be silently wishing I would drop dead in the most painful way possible, and have a voodoo doll of me at home that he stabs repeatedly every evening, but as long as he rings up my items correctly and doesn't short change me I couldn't care less. That's all I need or want from him.

    I don't disagree with your scenario. But what the commentator did was the equivalent of handing me my receipt and while I'm still putting my card back in my wallet, saying to their colleague loudly enough for me and their manager to hear "I fucking hate that guy, I hope he burns in Hell."

    Point made and accepted. I still think it's harsh that someone can lose their job over such a mistake though.

    That's the nature of the (capitalist) beast.

    Mistakes are accidentally calling Jeremy Hunt something that rhymes with Jeremy Hunt live on air. Mistakes are not calling Jeremy Hunt "a fucking cockwomble who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery" live on air.
  • Depends which channel you're on!
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    If you come to my house and use that kind of language, you will be told to stop. Persist, and you'll be leaving, and won't be invited back.

    You're within your rights to do that. Your house, your rules.

    And you'll understand that people who can't get by without using the F-word are similarly unwelcome in some other households.

    I'd guess that most people are generally willing to adapt their language to the sensitivities of those around them, to the people they encounter. For the duration of that encounter. But will sometimes slip up.

    And equally I'd guess that most people are unwilling to be told by others what they shouldn't say in private.

    Is it not the case that you'd try to refrain from swearing when visiting someone whom you knew objected to it ? Without being able to 100% guarantee success ?

    And equally, would you not resent anyone who tried to tell you that you should never swear even in private ?





  • Russ wrote: »
    I'd guess that most people are generally willing to adapt their language to the sensitivities of those around them, to the people they encounter. For the duration of that encounter. But will sometimes slip up.

    Yes, this is what most people do.

    The difference is that, although I think using sweary language is rude, and I would very much expect my sweary friends to restrain themselves in the company of my children, for example, I don't think swearing is a moral failing.

    I do think thinking about people in racially offensive / homophobic / other bigoted terms is a moral failing.

    You're sweeping all of this under the rug, and considering both kinds of language as "not acceptable in public" and expecting me to think of them in the same way. I don't, because they're different.

    And yes, I will absolutely judge you if you're happy to tolerate racism, homophobia and other bigotry in your private conversations. It makes you either a racist homophobic bigot, or a person who is happy to use racist homophobic bigotry in order to achieve social success.

    With respect to @Marvin the Martian's example of his idiot students messing everything up, I'm sure his colleagues are happy to moan about the latest thing that today's idiot did, but if they found themselves describing the idiot in racially offensive terms, they'd be looking at the business end of the disciplinary process.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I still think it's harsh that someone can lose their job over such a mistake though.

    Most Americans work under "at will" employment, meaning they can be fired at any time on a whim (or for no reason at all). Somewhere in the U.S. a minimum wage worker was just fired for being ten minutes late for their shift because their bus was late. I'm not going to get overly exercised about someone who fucked up badly on the job and their employer's response is a temporary suspension, presumably followed by a review of their case. It would be nice if all American workers got such treatment and I don't resent Mr. Brennaman's access to a process like that, I just think regarding it as some kind of exceptional injustice is wrong. He's been afforded a great deal of privilege that wouldn't be extended to most American workers.
    Russ wrote: »
    And equally I'd guess that most people are unwilling to be told by others what they shouldn't say in private [ on the job ].

    Is it not the case that you'd try to refrain from swearing when visiting someone whom you knew objected to it ? Without being able to 100% guarantee success ?

    And equally, would you not resent anyone who tried to tell you that you should never swear even in private [ on the job ] ?

    Fixed that for you. Nothing being discussed here actually happened "in private". You're just moving the goal posts.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Fixed that for you. Nothing being discussed here actually happened "in private". You're just moving the goal posts.

    Russ was responding to a post of mine, in which I had suggested that a person who "accidentally slips" and comes out with a racial / homophobic slur on air probably uses that sort of language regularly in private, and that his "slip" was an indication of the kind of person that he was behind his public persona.
  • I told my kids that if they were at some kind of event, if only dinner at a friend's, and they farted, to try to excuse themselves at the same volume as the fart (up to maximum inside voice). That way only the people who need to hear the apology will hear it, and people who don't, won't.

    If you screw up in a private home, your consequences extend to the persons there, and perhaps their friends they inform about the event. If you screw up before a nation on live TV, then your consequences will be much greater because a greater number of people heard your "fart".

    And again nobody has addressed my point that saying "fuck" and saying "fucking N*****r" aren't the same kind of screw up. They say completely different things about your character. The one says you have the same kind of loose language as the majority of English speakers. The other says you're a racist.

    I am reminded of when Dick Armey, then Republican House Majority Leader, called Democratic senator Barney Frank, "Barney Fag". His apology was that it was a "slip of the tongue". Things don't slip onto your tongue that aren't part of your regular vocabulary. You can be sure, as night follows day, that that's what he called Frank in private. Because he was a raging homophobe, as are I would wager virtually all Republican senators.

    So what you say in private can have public ramifications, I guess -- if you're unable to bridle your tongue in public from saying what you regularly say in private. In that sense it's a slip of the tongue. And shows you're an asshole.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    And again nobody has addressed my point that saying "fuck" and saying "fucking N*****r" aren't the same kind of screw up. They say completely different things about your character. The one says you have the same kind of loose language as the majority of English speakers. The other says you're a racist.

    I agree with you. @Russ keeps trying to sweep that difference under the carpet.

    This:
    Things don't slip onto your tongue that aren't part of your regular vocabulary. You can be sure, as night follows day, that that's what he called Frank in private. Because he was a raging homophobe, as are I would wager virtually all Republican senators.

    Upthread, Russ was trying to argue that knowing what a word meant was the same as it forming a normal part of your lexicon and "slipping out". Either Russ hasn't thought that one through, or, well, ...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    I am reminded of when Dick Armey, then Republican House Majority Leader, called Democratic senator Barney Frank, "Barney Fag". His apology was that it was a "slip of the tongue". Things don't slip onto your tongue that aren't part of your regular vocabulary. You can be sure, as night follows day, that that's what he called Frank in private. Because he was a raging homophobe, as are I would wager virtually all Republican senators.

    Rep. Frank's response to this was classic:
    I turned to my own expert, my mother, who reports that in 59 years of marriage, no one ever introduced her as Elsie Fag.

    Needless to say, Frank did not feel the need to play along and accept a patently insincere apology.
Sign In or Register to comment.