It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The true cost of PC

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
We all probably have our favorite stories of Political Correctness run amock. Recently, in San Francisco a local radio host, taliking about the local baseball team, condemned "brain dead Caribbean hitters hacking at slop nightly". The host, Larry Krueger, was suspended without pay for seven days. The manager of the SF Giants Felipe Alou, who is of Caribbean descent, refused to accept an apology from Krueger, and complained that the punishment was too light. He said that: "There's no way to apologize for such a sin". I want to look at the subject of Political Correctness from a different angle. My concern is this: why does culturual liberalism get so much protection in the media, while traditional liberlism gets none? Any comment that smacks of racism is immediatly scorned, and its maker fired or otherwise punished, yet we have widespread disdain towards the Bill of Rights, Human rights, and the concept of basic decency. Rush Limbaugh is fired from ESPN for making a racially toned comment about Donovan Mcnabb, but recieves little condemnation, and no punishment when he makes light of the prison scandal in Iraq. Shows like NYPD Blue, and 24, promote torture of suspects, while carefully casting a demographically mixed group of actors. It is safer in America today to call for the nuking of entire cities, than to make a comment that could, coneivebly, be construed as racist. I think Liberals have misguided priorities, and must share some of the blame for any loss of freedom expeirenced under the current administration, or in the future.




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by consprtrkr
I think Liberals have misguided priorities, and must share some of the blame for any loss of freedom expeirenced under the current administration, or in the future.


Anyone previously in a public role suspended for saying something that potentially casts his employers in a bad light that could adversely affect their business has nothing but capitalism (and himself) to blame for his circumstances.

There are no PC police.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
im wondering why you are labeling anyone who gets disgruntled @ a racial comment a liberal? in the same sense, a 'conservative' will be ok when they are hurled a racial insult towards his race (black or white or whatever). i think not.

i just first wanted to point out the bipartisan crap out so we can discuss straight.

i think this whole nation has it's priorities wrong and it all starts at the top. when we are far more interesting in bombing some country than fixing our own backyard we are not going to accomplish much.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I live in the Bay Area and this guy is prone to rants all the time. To be honest I am surprised he did not get fired as his station is a minority owner of the SF Giants.

At anyrate the comments were uncalled for and were NOT taken out of context for once.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredTAt anyrate the comments were uncalled for and were NOT taken out of context for once.



in what context would they have been deemed ok?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I live in the Bay Area and this guy is prone to rants all the time. To be honest I am surprised he did not get fired as his station is a minority owner of the SF Giants.

At anyrate the comments were uncalled for and were NOT taken out of context for once.
I wasn't defending the comments, or the host. I guess what I'm trying to get is that are two levels of speech in America. Most speech is protected by the first amd., but that doesn't mean you won't be fired, boycotted, or otherwise punished, and I'm not saying that such a thing is always wrong; if the mainstream media declares that holocaust denial is unworthy of much discussion on their air waves or in their newspapers they are probably right, but I'm trying to look at the question of priorities, and the reason I focus on Liberals is that they are the ones that are supposed to be looking out for our civil liberties. I could give another hundred examples, but here is just one more: The show 24 has had a consistent, and gradual policy of undermining the bill of rights; each season they push the issue of torture, and "bending the rules" a little further. Yet, last season they came under the most fire for their depiction of Muslims, not their disdain for the constitution. The criticism was distressing enough to the producers that they put disclaimers, featuring Kiefer Sutherland, before and after a lot of their commercial breaks.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
No I did not think you were. However, as RANT kind of pointed out, he chose to exersize his First Ammendment rights while he was representing his employer which puts them in a bad light.

I agree there can be a case made for taking PC too far and at what point does that impact out 1st ammendment rights. Some sort of balance has to be found. If he chose to speak his mind on a street corner I would be upset by this but the circumstances he chose are a bit different IMHO

[edit on 8/9/05 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Is the phrase "brain-dead caribbean hitters" racist?

I mean, does that phrase has racial connotations? If you say yes, are you implying that all people who call themselves "caribbean" are of a minority race, or are at least non-white? Meaning that there are no "white" caribbeans?

Or, does that phrase intone that people of the caribbean socio-economic background are all "brain-dead", i.e. of lesser intelligence? And how exactly does intelligence play into the task of hitting a round ball with a round bat? Or is it a veiled reference to drug use, maybe?

Would the quote be less offensive/more offensive if it were slightly modified, to say for example:

"brain-dead hillbilly hitters"
or
"brain-dead canuck hitters"
or
"brain-dead redneck hitters"
or
"brain-dead Chinatown hitters"

Now, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, not defending anyone. But, honestly, has political correctness gone too far? If I am paid to speak on the radio, and to describe the contents of a sports game (announcer/color man), then maybe you can get into hot water for inserting personal opinion into your broadcast. But if you are a radio commentator, how can you be suspended for doing what is, essentially, your job? And why would anybody want to listen to anybody on the radio if you knew that the radio personality was either being censored, or was forbidden to speak his mind freely by his corporate bosses? Might as well listen to a computer-generated recording.

If the dude got suspended for denegrating the hitting talent of the organization that pays his salary - that I can understand. But I suspect that wasn't the primary motivation.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Is the phrase "brain-dead caribbean hitters" racist?


the words in themselves aren't bad, but the person who said it and in the context he said it in was depicting an entire region of players as being nothing but brutes who can hit the ball. now if you want to agree with that then that's your personal belief but it's not a popular one and definitely an insulting one to Caribbean players for far too many reasons to post.

the situation was correctly handled imo, you can't have people throwing personal judgement which is:
1. insulting to an entire group of people
2. doesn't support the belief of your employer



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Thanks to those who have responded so far, but I was kind of driving at something besides the typical PC vs free speech- what is racism- are we too sensitive- debate. It might be my fault, i'll try and define my terms more clearly. Political Correctness is a loosely organized movement that is essentially post-modern in nature. Its roots lie in the philosophies of deconstructionism, and post-structurlism, which hold that culture, and reality is constructed and not naturally occuring. You can trace the roots back further to some disgruntled marxists known as the Frankfurt School, who advocated that marxists concentrate on capturing the means of culutural production as a remedy for what they saw as the failure of the working class to embrace the class struggle. The left has largely been co-opted by this radicalism; the right uses PC as a boogeyman. Our traditonal Liberal beliefs- the bill of rights-human rights- and oppostion to authoritarinaism, get left in the dust.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join