Letters to the Editor
-
Visualization and humanization alters the joke
Rape is visually implied in this skit. In other examples posted by LWs, the "joke" is abstract, referring to rape in general rather than rape in particular. In the Python instance, it is the "victim" who makes the joke and we do not participate as viewers.
I think the visual medium and the direct implication of an actual rape is what made it unfunny and in very bad taste. We participate visually in the scene and our sympathies are engaged. When "rape" is used as an abstract term in the other examples, it lacks humanity or sympathy.
I do not find any of this material "funny", in general or particular.
-
No, the lepra.
The lepra wrote:
"You may argue that in the example in question, Imus bullied those Rutgers women. I would say he mocked them, and lightly, passingly at that, and the punishment was nowhere near equal to the "crime.""
With the phrase "Nappy Headed Hos", Imus insulted, in his national public forum, not just the Rutger's women's basketball team, but every woman on the planet. Considering the severity of what that racist, misogynistic, punk, red neck did, losing his paycheck from NBC was a rather light punishment I think. Recently Imus has gotten a chance to get back on the air, but I damn sure as hell will not listen to him.
"But your characterization of this particular joke teller as "distasteful," "a nuisance" and spreading "hate and discontent" is all your personal opinion. Common decency may lead you to that opinion,"
I never said it wasn't my opinion led by common decency. It is my opinion, led by common decency, that Imus is a racist, misogynistic, punk, red neck, and I want to have absolutely nothing to do with him. But I support his right to say whatever he wants, just not on my dime.
"but it should also lead you to the conclusion that you shouldn't impose your values on him."
I don't want to have anything to do with Imus, much less impose my values on him. Imus can say whatever the hell he wants, but he damn sure as hell aint going to say anything that would obtain my sympathy or on my dime.
-
fetboy
You wrote, "I would support putting pressure on a network, through their sponsors, to yank a personality they hired off the air, if that personality made rape jokes, racially charged jokes, a holocaust joke, or a homophobic jokes." In a subsequent comment, you wrote, "If someone worked for me, and spouted the phrase "Nappy Headed Hos", I would fire him/her in the second, and not think twice about it."
You don't think firing someone, or agitating to have them fired, is an attempt to impose your values? Let's say you're Imus' boss. You fire his ass for saying what he said. Do you think your other employees would think twice before saying "nappy headed ho?" Have you not then effectively imposed your values on them? Have you not imposed your values on Imus by hurting him for crossing your arbitrary line? Whether or not your values are "good" is beside the point; everyone thinks their values are good. Whether or not Imus is an asshole is an opinion and therefore also beside the point.
Of course, you could argue that all my crap about free speech as a personal value renders it as irrelevant as your hardline anti-racist/sexist stance. But I'm not advocating imposing that value on anyone. I'm just sort of assuming that, at least in the abstract, it's a value most of us share.
Finally, I don't quite understand this from your last comment (italicized part is you quoting me, confusingly enough):
"But your characterization of this particular joke teller as "distasteful," "a nuisance" and spreading "hate and discontent" is all your personal opinion. Common decency may lead you to that opinion,"
I never said it wasn't my opinion led by common decency. It is my opinion, led by common decency, that Imus is a racist, misogynistic, punk, red neck, and I want to have absolutely nothing to do with him. But I support his right to say whatever he wants, just not on my dime.Did you mean "was" instead of "wasn't?" If not, huh? I was saying that common decency led you to that opinion.
-
To the Lepra
"You don't think firing someone, or agitating to have them fired, is an attempt to impose your values?"
No! Imposing your values implies forcing someone to change someone values or beliefs to match your own. For example; Anne Coulter wanted to attack the Middle East, and force the Arabs to convert to Christianity. She wanted to impose her Christian values onto the Arabs. I don't want to impose anything on Imus, I want to have absolutely nothing to do with him, and I not going to buy any product of a company that sponsors his show. And I am going to let all capitalist companies know that I will not buy their products if they sponsor Imus.
By firing someone based on their conduct or behavior, you are not imposing anything on them, you are disassociating yourself with them. Imus’ conduct and behavior is not something I want to be associated with. I know some employers use that reasoning to discriminate against gays and transgendered individuals, which is why I am in favor of legislation that would criminalize discrimination against gays and the transgendered. But I don’t think that you have an argument to say Imus suffered from discrimination, because he is a racist, misogynistic, punk, red neck.
Currently I am trying to decrease the amount of oil products I buy, so that I can stop indirectly supporting terrorism, but I would never support discrimination against all of Islam. I also never buy drugs, because I don’t want to support South American terrorism. And, of course, I would never support discrimination against Latino Americans.
-
Minor correction to last letter.
Sorry my editing sucks. I meant to write No! Imposing your values implies forcing someone to change his or her values or beliefs to match your own.