Thank you Don Imus

[jomar]

This will probably be a short thread, but I wanted to thank Mr. Imus. I love the fact that the issue has moved to the larger issues. To shining a light on rappers who, by and large, denigrate women and glorify violence. So thank you Mr. Imus, for being a nice person who did a bad thing. I hope the issue stays on the front burner, but I'm a cynic.

 

[elsol]

This will probably be a short thread, but I wanted to thank Mr. Imus. I love the fact that the issue has moved to the larger issues. To shining a light on rappers who, by and large, denigrate women and glorify violence. So thank you Mr. Imus, for being a nice person who did a bad thing. I hope the issue stays on the front burner, but I'm a cynic.

It will not.

Rappers make people money.

There's also a different problem.

Imus was a singular target... who do you attack in the rap world? Imus had no but choice to engange; the rapper, probably a black person, can spin it much better either by not engaging or taking advantage of it by selling more records.

Imus makes people money through a small group of people deciding to advertise through him.... rappers make money by a large group of people buying their music.

It will go away.

 

[jomar]

It will not.

Rappers make people money.

There's also a different problem.

Imus was a singular target... who do you attack in the rap world? Imus had no but choice to engange; the rapper, probably a black person, can spin it much better either by not engaging or taking advantage of it by selling more records.

Imus makes people money through a small group of people deciding to advertise through him.... rappers make money by a large group of people buying their music.

It will go away.

Yes, rappers make people big money. And it's too bad the issue will go away. I don't attack any specific person. Imus is a symptom. A lot of rappers are misogynistic and I'm sad about that.

 

[cantdog]

People have a fuckin right to be misogynistic.

 

[amicus]

People have a fuckin right to be misogynistic.

~~~

Cantdog and amicus agree on something?

naw, tell me it ain't so!

amicus...

 

[Liar]

~~~

Cantdog and amicus agree on something?

naw, tell me it ain't so!

amicus...

Where ya been, ami?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Liar]

Where ya been, ami?[/QUOTE]


~~~

Lurking...on another site...reading...commenting...planting a garden...and paying attention to a little blonde thing that knocked on my door late one night....


amicus...

 

[cantdog]

You are right to credit Imus, but he only did it the way a schoolchild would, whining. Once he could see that he was pinned to the wall, he said, what about rappers? They're worse than me! and he said it specifically to divert the discussion into unprofitable channels and take off some of the heat on poor put-upon Don Imus. Any second grader would have tried the ploy.

Better than half the punditry bought right into the non sequitur. A lot of hip-hop people have their own labels, and are unlikely to fire themselves, for one thing, and also, MSNBC doesn't happen to syndicate a rapper. No matter, they bought it, and cheerfully shifted the ground of the whole debate, just as Imus wanted.

Suddenly the line shifted. Before, the sides were pro-firing, anti-firing, referring to an asshole. Now it was supposed to be pro-racial-slur, anti-racial-slur, regarding everyone under the sun. A different discussion.

What makes it weird is that people are now trying to sound rational while discussing both at once. I think the latter discussion is dangerous because the executive branch is under the control of censors, right now, especially at Justice. Censors suck farts from dead chickens, and you can quote me.

Suppose it stays front burner, man. What do you advocate-- censorship? It already says "explicit Lyrics". Ya want, "Misogynistic lyrics" on there? And I guess "Racist references"? Or maybe you want a more sweeping law passed, such that Gonzales gets to play Vatican and disallow any publications without the Attorney General's stamp of approval?

What are you calling for? All they wanted in the events that just took place was Imus to cease being distributed, by specific companies who employed and distributed his, um, show.

That's his employers, not the government, notice. And the call came from aggrieved parties, ones who had actually been harmed by Imus. They could as legitimately have brought it to court, but chose to handle it by public protest.

So you might be calling for public protest of hip-hop gangsta stuff, or maybe that Barnes and Noble or Borders or Newbury Comics or whoever cease to distribute certain prison-culture performers. I can't tell what you want.

But if you just call out, loudly, "Something has to be done!! O Lordy, Lordy! They said 'bitch'!"-- well, beware. Because the current executive branch may use you to cast yet another net of control over public discourse.

 

[amicus]

Well...I don't think you were replying to my post, but anyway...

I simply want total, complete, absolute, intellectual freedom to say anything I want at any time in any place. Of course I acknowledge the rights of others to protect themselves from libel and slander and they should have recourse.

I want the fucking FCC Federal Communications Commission, abolished. The 'air waves' are not 'public' property, but are in fact 'private' property and should be protected as such.

I want no fucking newspaper censors, or MPA, movie censors, I simply want a free market place with the rights of all defined and protected.

You wanna keep your kids from hearing or seeing or reading porn, keep them from doing that; do not engage the police powers of government to parent for you.

Don Imus is an uneducated, left wing liberal asshole who has not class at all, and I do not listen to his drivel...yet...if he wants to call a spade a spade, or a nappy headed nigger, just that, he should be free do do so.

Yes, I know...fuck you too. Just because people say the words, Kike, Spik, Jewboy, Nigger, Pickaninny, hey, they gotta a right and others can say 'white boy' and all the other shit....

For those of you in the know, it is the far left, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, leading the way to censorship, so it is not just far right or far left, it is ignorance in general that proposes the abrogation of the rights to free speech.

oh well...

amicus...

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Don Imus is an uneducated, left wing liberal asshole who has not class at all, and I do not listen to his drivel...yet...if he wants to call a spade a spade, or a nappy headed nigger, just that, he should be free do do so.

You and so many others miss the point. *sigh* Once more, with feeling:

He is free to say whatever he wants. His employer is also free to fire him for it.

Damn, this is getting really old having to explain this shit over and over again, ad nauseum.

 

[amicus]

'
Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Don Imus is an uneducated, left wing liberal asshole who has not class at all, and I do not listen to his drivel...yet...if he wants to call a spade a spade, or a nappy headed nigger, just that, he should be free do do so.


You and so many others miss the point. *sigh* Once more, with feeling:

He is free to say whatever he wants. His employer is also free to fire him for it.

Damn, this is getting really old having to explain this shit over and over again, ad nauseum.

~~~


naw, you don't get away with that, girl....you just don't.

You come across saying you support the freedom of people to speak and the freedom of employers to fire and you believe neither of those.

I am a broadcaster on radio and I know the limitations from employer, sponsor and FCC guru's to whom I must bow and I have been fired for confronting all three.

To your 'ad nauseum', I add my "infinitum", the length to which I have gone to advocate freedom while you continue to advocate controls on free speech.

gimmee a break, double speak went out with 1984 in 1948.


amicus...

 

[Sherry Hawk]

'
Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Don Imus is an uneducated, left wing liberal asshole who has not class at all, and I do not listen to his drivel...yet...if he wants to call a spade a spade, or a nappy headed nigger, just that, he should be free do do so.


You and so many others miss the point. *sigh* Once more, with feeling:

He is free to say whatever he wants. His employer is also free to fire him for it.

Damn, this is getting really old having to explain this shit over and over again, ad nauseum.

~~~


naw, you don't get away with that, girl....you just don't.

You come across saying you support the freedom of people to speak and the freedom of employers to fire and you believe neither of those.

I am a broadcaster on radio and I know the limitations from employer, sponsor and FCC guru's to whom I must bow and I have been fired for confronting all three.

To your 'ad nauseum', I add my "infinitum", the length to which I have gone to advocate freedom while you continue to advocate controls on free speech.

gimmee a break, double speak went out with 1984 in 1948.


amicus...

You have no idea what I believe.

What the hell is your point?

 

[CharleyH]

You and so many others miss the point. *sigh* Once more, with feeling:

He is free to say whatever he wants. His employer is also free to fire him for it.

Damn, this is getting really old having to explain this shit over and over again, ad nauseum.

I have no idea who Imus is but this age old convo has been going on forever. I do agree with Cant and I do agree with Amicus, especially the points:

The 'air waves' are not 'public' property, but are in fact 'private' property and should be protected as such.

I want no fucking newspaper censors, or MPA, movie censors, I simply want a free market place with the rights of all defined and protected.

You wanna keep your kids from hearing or seeing or reading porn, keep them from doing that; do not engage the police powers of government to parent for you.

I agree with this because the word "censor" in a supposed democracy lessens the concept of democracy and if nothing else I like to think we are all free and equal to say and do as we please in a supposed democracy. (yes - I know I will catch flack for this statement because it will be misunderstood).

Still, the greatest freedom in democracy is: CHOICE. When there is no choice - in effect - there is no democracy.

Edit to add (sorry Sherry Hawk, quoted you and forgot to respond). Certainly. It's a hard question: freedom vs. responsibility.

 

[jomar]

You are right to credit Imus, but he only did it the way a schoolchild would, whining. Once he could see that he was pinned to the wall, he said, what about rappers? They're worse than me! and he said it specifically to divert the discussion into unprofitable channels and take off some of the heat on poor put-upon Don Imus. Any second grader would have tried the ploy.

Better than half the punditry bought right into the non sequitur. A lot of hip-hop people have their own labels, and are unlikely to fire themselves, for one thing, and also, MSNBC doesn't happen to syndicate a rapper. No matter, they bought it, and cheerfully shifted the ground of the whole debate, just as Imus wanted.

Suddenly the line shifted. Before, the sides were pro-firing, anti-firing, referring to an asshole. Now it was supposed to be pro-racial-slur, anti-racial-slur, regarding everyone under the sun. A different discussion.

What makes it weird is that people are now trying to sound rational while discussing both at once. I think the latter discussion is dangerous because the executive branch is under the control of censors, right now, especially at Justice. Censors suck farts from dead chickens, and you can quote me.

Suppose it stays front burner, man. What do you advocate-- censorship? It already says "explicit Lyrics". Ya want, "Misogynistic lyrics" on there? And I guess "Racist references"? Or maybe you want a more sweeping law passed, such that Gonzales gets to play Vatican and disallow any publications without the Attorney General's stamp of approval?

What are you calling for? All they wanted in the events that just took place was Imus to cease being distributed, by specific companies who employed and distributed his, um, show.

That's his employers, not the government, notice. And the call came from aggrieved parties, ones who had actually been harmed by Imus. They could as legitimately have brought it to court, but chose to handle it by public protest.

So you might be calling for public protest of hip-hop gangsta stuff, or maybe that Barnes and Noble or Borders or Newbury Comics or whoever cease to distribute certain prison-culture performers. I can't tell what you want.

But if you just call out, loudly, "Something has to be done!! O Lordy, Lordy! They said 'bitch'!"-- well, beware. Because the current executive branch may use you to cast yet another net of control over public discourse.

Calm down, my friend. Nowhere did I mention censorship. I get it that market forces got Imus fired. And he'd probably still be on the air and we wouldn't be having this discussion if weren't for YouTube.

I don't want censorship. I'd prefer...oh, let's call it enlightenment, a raised awareness. I think it is a sad statement that rappers get rich off their "music." And I do realize they aren't the only ones who minimize, sexualize and trivialize women and young girls.

So I think having a public discussion about it is good. And I think it would be wonderful if the public decided not to buy gagnsta stuff, for one. And I would just as soon not see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pontificating on TV - their presence always irks.

 

[cantdog]

That's the spirit. I just hate to see people get hot about this kinda thing. Next thing you know you got another explicit lyrix thing

 

[shereads]

I have no idea who Imus is but this age old convo has been going on forever. I do agree with Cant and I do agree with Amicus, especially the points:

Holymary! Amicus said something I agree with? I'm against censorship too. Even of speech that offends me. Freedom's a bitch.

It would be so much easier to rally around a "Ban Censorship" movement, at the end of which the pro-censorship gang would be disbanded by the Free Speech Police and their leaders made to disappear, Pinochet-style.

Eventually, Sting would record a song about the victims of my Ban Censorship movement. It would have to be banned, of course. I'd have mixed feelings about that. But upon reflection, I'd consider the loss of one song a small price to pay for free speech.

 

[elsol]

You have no idea what I believe.

What the hell is your point?

That he's better than you... smarter than you... more rational that you... that you're just a piece of shit and you should shut the fuck up because you don't even have the brain cells to recognize he's right about everything and dumbly agree with him.

I think that about covers it all.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

That he's better than you... smarter than you... more rational that you... that you're just a piece of shit and you should shut the fuck up because you don't even have the brain cells to recognize he's right about everything and dumbly agree with him.

I think that about covers it all.

*drink spew*

yeah, you're right.

 

[Pure]

In amicus' dreamland:

The 'air waves' are not 'public' property, but are in fact 'private' property and should be protected as such.

evidence?

oh, i remember: the US justice system and constitutional process has been operating wrongly since the anti slavery amendment, the first great attack on private property. evidence: amicus disagrees with these decisions.

likewise the US electoral system has badly malfunctioned in that Jimmy Carter, instead of John Amicus, became President, and the silly voters persist in electing Democrats to congress.

CENSORSHIP:

Amicus paper stance is admirable. But you have to realize that he has never in his thousands of postings addressed a single MISuse of governmental censorship by a Republican administration, including the present one (e.g., COPA).

In short, it's like Amicus defense of LIBERTY-- and virtual silence on the Patriot act.

Sham.

 

[elsol]

In amicus' dreamland:

The 'air waves' are not 'public' property, but are in fact 'private' property and should be protected as such.

evidence?

oh, i remember: the US justice system and constitutional process has been operating wrongly since the anti slavery amendment, the first great attack on private property. evidence: amicus disagrees with these decisions.

likewise the US electoral system has badly malfunctioned in that Jimmy Carter, instead of John Amicus, became President, and the silly voters persist in electing Democrats to congress.

CENSORSHIP:

Amicus paper stance is admirable. But you have to realize that he has never in his thousands of postings addressed a single MISuse of governmental censorship by a Republican administration, including the present one (e.g., COPA).

In short, it's like Amicus defense of LIBERTY-- and virtual silence on the Patriot act.

Sham.

You have to break eggs to make an omelete. And if eggs have to be broken, it's best to let the professionals do it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Amicus is opposing private termination policies and Sherry is defending them, while Ami stands against "censorship"? Okay, when did I land in Bizarro World, again?

 

[Pure]

good points, sev~

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

good points, sev~

Well, it's just strange to see from the right and left inverted. Mind you, I don't see it as censorship for private firms to sack Imus. It was just hypocrisy, since it was done by ultra-fascist writer and media tycoon Michael Savage, a known racist.

 

[cantdog]

Precisely. Savage. That makes this one of the few instances where public protest has done a damn thing, this year. Of course, the media covered it, and they do not cover most public protest.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Precisely. Savage. That makes this one of the few instances where public protest has done a damn thing, this year. Of course, the media covered it, and they do not cover most public protest.

Even a bigot like Savage respects his bottom line first. Money first, principles (even warped ones like his) second.