Civility Watch: Grooving to the Climate of Hate

[Article 15]

Really? How about Al Sharpton?

He's a loser.

What about him?

 

[Article 15]

I'm heading home.

If Al Sharpton called for free speech to be silenced (and I mean REALLY called for it not some round peg/square hole spin) .. then, as usual, he's fuckin' idiot and I don't support his position.

And if you have to pull up Al freakin' Sharpton as your example .... you've failed.

 

[chanel]

I already mentioned the fairness doctrine supported by the former Speaker of the House and you dismissed that. I could give 100s of examples, but it isn't worth my time, because you obviously have your head in the sand. Al Sharpton got a sit-down with the FCC. That's not insignificant.

We have a series of meetings going on, and we’re going to see the FCC next week. We’re not going to stand by and allow publicly regulated radio and television just go for marketing and promoting this kind of racism. Here’s a man who calls the president names, plays a record calling him the good negro that has the formal majority whip sore soon-to-be Jim Clayburn as “Driving Miss Nancy” trying to play off Driving Miss Daisy.

Rush Limbaugh has the right to see whatever he wants to say. He can’t do it on publicly regulated air waves. The FCC has the responsibility to set standards to say the public cannot be offended based on their race or gender in this country, and you federally regulated air waves that they give licenses to that are very competitive and the FCC? Is very selective based on standards.

Al Sharpton on Rush Limbaugh and FCC | The Ed Show Video | Mediaite

I pay attention to what's happening in Europe. It will soon be here if people keep their heads in the sand.

 

[Article 15]

I already mentioned the fairness doctrine supported by the former Speaker of the House and you dismissed that. I could give 100s of examples, but it isn't worth my time, because you obviously have your head in the sand. Al Sharpton got a sit-down with the FCC. That's not insignificant.

We have a series of meetings going on, and we’re going to see the FCC next week. We’re not going to stand by and allow publicly regulated radio and television just go for marketing and promoting this kind of racism. Here’s a man who calls the president names, plays a record calling him the good negro that has the formal majority whip sore soon-to-be Jim Clayburn as “Driving Miss Nancy” trying to play off Driving Miss Daisy.

Rush Limbaugh has the right to see whatever he wants to say. He can’t do it on publicly regulated air waves. The FCC has the responsibility to set standards to say the public cannot be offended based on their race or gender in this country, and you federally regulated air waves that they give licenses to that are very competitive and the FCC? Is very selective based on standards.

Al Sharpton on Rush Limbaugh and FCC | The Ed Show Video | Mediaite

I pay attention to what's happening in Europe. It will soon be here if people keep their heads in the sand.

Of course I dismissed your holding up of the Fairness Doctrine because does not "silence free speech." I'm against it but to say it silences free speech is a bunch of crap. You know it. I know it. And the former Speaker was such a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine that a bill to reinstate never saw the Congressional floor during her tenure with a Controlled Government.

As far as Sharpton is concerned the man is a fuckin' jackass and a racist, himself. Amazingly, he's probably a bigger racist than Rush and you will be hard pressed to find lefties on this site that even like the guy ... let alone support him.

So yeah, when you have to bring up Al Sharpton as your star witness, you fail.

 

[Ravi]

When you have to pull an obscure youtube rap song written by someone nobody has heard of to try and draw a comparison to talking heads who have their own radio show, cable show, or mainstream blog read by millions you have already failed.

But...but...how else can they claim victimhood?

 

[Article 15]

When you have to pull an obscure youtube rap song written by someone nobody has heard of to try and draw a comparison to talking heads who have their own radio show, cable show, or mainstream blog read by millions you have already failed.

But...but...how else can they claim victimhood?

I know I shouldn't surprised by it by now but I am still astounded at the lengths some people go to and the strrrrrrrrrrreches they will make to try and make a partisan point.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's the retarded "guilt by not condemning" bullshit that I have a problem with. You shouldn't have to condemn some random right-wing militia guy on the internet any more than I should have to condemn this rapper - neither has anything to do with us. I'm not guilty of every crime that someone I agree with politically commits, and neither are you.

I don't feel in the least bit guilty because I generally don't speak about other people in crude and hateful ways. But when people speak about others in crude and hateful--not to mention hurtful--ways, I think it should be condemned. If more people did so, we might have a great deal more civility.

I don't think you're right about that, but that's beside the point.

My point is that you're welcome to "condemn" whatever you like - my problem with it is the demands for "condemnation" from right wingers about this - and from left wingers on countless other topics.

If it makes you feel better to "condemn", by all means go ahead. But if you feel the need to "condemn" every rude thing that people say or do, you're going to be pretty busy.

This is not important, in any sense of the word. It's not important enough for me to "condemn" it.

No, I don't condemn every rude thing people say. There are plenty of people, here on USMB for instance, who think I'm rude because I express an opinion they don't like. They think I'm rude for introducing a particular subject. They think I'm rude for criticizing one of their idols or gods. They think I'm rude for giving my perspective on some things.

But there is speech intended to demean or hurt others. This rapper was using that kind of speech. It is my opinion that we would be a much more civil society and one much more pleasant to live in if we did not condone such speech but rather condemned it.

To condemn the content of the speech--not forbid mind you but to declare it disgraceful and unacceptable--is not at all the same thing as condemning the rapper himself.