View Full Version : Lewis Drops an Anti-Gay Slur on Telethon
Vegas
09-04-2007, 05:03 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RES2V00&show_article=1
NEW YORK (AP) - Jerry Lewis dropped an anti-gay slur—the same one that got Isaiah Washington of "Grey's Anatomy" in trouble—during the 18th hour of his annual Labor Day telethon.
He apologized Tuesday for a "bad choice of words."
The 81-year-old showman—prowling about the stage during the live telecast Monday in Las Vegas—was goofing around and dodging his cameraman, then went into a ramble about imaginary family members.
"Oh, your family has come to see you," he said, speaking to the camera and gesturing toward thin air.
"You remember Bart, your older son," he said, and motioning toward another unseen character, "Jesse, the illiterate f-----.
"No," Lewis said, quickly stopping himself before continuing.
Monday's monologue prompted a critical statement Tuesday from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Neil Giuliano, GLAAD president, called Lewis' use of the term "simply unacceptable."
"It also feeds a climate of hatred and intolerance that contributes to putting our community in harm's way," Giuliano said.
In a statement Tuesday, Lewis said he was making "a joking comment to a member of my production team."
"I apologize to anyone who was offended," he went on. "Everyone who knows me understands that I hold no prejudices in this regard. In the family atmosphere of the telethon, I forget that not everyone knows me that well.
"That something like this would distract from the true purpose of the telethon pains me deeply. ... I accept responsibility for what I said. There are no excuses," he said.
Lewis' telethon, in its 42nd year, set a new record by raising $63.7 million to benefit the Muscular Dystrophy Association, topping last year's event by $3 million.
KinjaKahn
09-04-2007, 05:11 PM
60+ million for Muscular dystrophy let him say what he wants. How much did the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation donate raise for Aids?
ryr8828
09-04-2007, 05:24 PM
60+ million for Muscular dystrophy let him say what he wants. How much did the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation donate raise for Aids?
Only half of them view it as a threat.
Ed Who?
09-04-2007, 06:56 PM
Only half of them view it as a threat.
What they really should do ("they" being all the minority groups that consistently get harassed) is have this lottery. Every celebrity gets in, and once a week they pull enough names to give each group a person whose balls they can bust. They tagged celebrity must make a derogatory comment about the requisite group within 7 days.
Or better yet, they can just pay a bunch of their members to start claiming on a weekly basis that they heard "so and so" call someone a f____ or qu___ or r___ or w____ or something. Or any of the other "bad words." I mean, the credibility as to a) the absolute horror of hearing these words, b) the detriment to the "community" in general, and c) the scorned species' truthfulness is absolute in our society today.
We're in a situation where gays, blacks, women, hispanics, asians, and muslims could screw over every white person in this country. Might as well hand over the keys to the country and let them accuse anyone and everyone of everything.
What they really should do ("they" being all the minority groups that consistently get harassed) is have this lottery. Every celebrity gets in, and once a week they pull enough names to give each group a person whose balls they can bust. They tagged celebrity must make a derogatory comment about the requisite group within 7 days.
Or better yet, they can just pay a bunch of their members to start claiming on a weekly basis that they heard "so and so" call someone a f____ or qu___ or r___ or w____ or something. Or any of the other "bad words." I mean, the credibility as to a) the absolute horror of hearing these words, b) the detriment to the "community" in general, and c) the scorned species' truthfulness is absolute in our society today.
We're in a situation where gays, blacks, women, hispanics, asians, and muslims could screw over every white person in this country. Might as well hand over the keys to the country and let them accuse anyone and everyone of everything.
Well, I suppose that would be one way to look at this story. Sheesh.
60+ million for Muscular dystrophy let him say what he wants. How much did the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation donate raise for Aids?
Yeah! He can do whatever he wants!
It blows my mind how this becomes a story to some about the plight of the downtrodden white man.
hannitykillspuppies
09-04-2007, 08:59 PM
What they really should do ("they" being all the minority groups that consistently get harassed) is have this lottery. Every celebrity gets in, and once a week they pull enough names to give each group a person whose balls they can bust. They tagged celebrity must make a derogatory comment about the requisite group within 7 days.
Or better yet, they can just pay a bunch of their members to start claiming on a weekly basis that they heard "so and so" call someone a f____ or qu___ or r___ or w____ or something. Or any of the other "bad words." I mean, the credibility as to a) the absolute horror of hearing these words, b) the detriment to the "community" in general, and c) the scorned species' truthfulness is absolute in our society today.
We're in a situation where gays, blacks, women, hispanics, asians, and muslims could screw over every white person in this country. Might as well hand over the keys to the country and let them accuse anyone and everyone of everything.oh the trials and tribulations of being a white man in america. i don't know how i do it.
hannitykillspuppies
09-04-2007, 09:00 PM
It blows my mind how this becomes a story to some about the plight of the downtrodden white man.there but for the grace of god go i.
ryr8828
09-04-2007, 09:25 PM
It blows my mind how this becomes a story to some about the plight of the downtrodden white man.
How much press has Obama's racist church gotten?
I really don't care. I make fun of queers, lesbos, blacks, polacks, the brits, women, mexicans, and the french. Especially the french. Oh, and arabs and indians.
and buddhists.
I will continue to do so. Don't try and tell me that women don't make fun of men,
mexicans don't make fun of blacks,
brits don't make fun of americans,
blacks don't make fun of whites,
mexicans don't make fun of whites, or
that the french don't make fun of us.
It just always seems that the press is over indignant when a white man says something that isn't pc.
Ed Who?
09-04-2007, 09:32 PM
oh the trials and tribulations of being a white man in america. i don't know how i do it.
Neither do the rest of us.
Iron Jaw
09-04-2007, 09:46 PM
Might as well hand over the keys to the country and let them accuse anyone and everyone of everything.
Then they'd be hating, killing and bitch-slapping each other.:D
Oh, wait....they already are.
Then they'd be hating, killing and bitch-slapping each other.:D
Oh, wait....they already are.
Ahhhhh, the infamous "they", denoting "I am not a part of said group". Very nice.
Iron Jaw
09-05-2007, 03:17 AM
Ahhhhh, the infamous "they", denoting "I am not a part of said group". Very nice.
Alright, so I'm not always politically correct and I like to clown around at times. As does Jerry Lewis......his fame and fortune came from clowning.
Actually, the point was, that no matter the racial, ethnic, religious makeup there is still going to be predudice and hatred. If everybody were of the same racial and ethnic backgound, divisions would be found anyway. Those divisions are currently present in everyday life. Monetary divisions, social status, looks (fat, skinny, acne, hair, etc.), all create divisions, prejudice, hatreds and someone feels left out.
As a kid, I was a huge baseball fan (I still am, but don't like the era of divisional play, the DH, steroids). One of my favorite players was Curt Flood, a dimunitive, but solid basehitting and good fielding centerfielder for the Cardinals, who happened to be black. He wrote a book after he retired called "The Way it is." Excellent book. If you like baseball, it's a quality read.
Anyway, he talked about his early days in the National League, before he was recognized as a star player. His teammate and eventual Hall of Famer, Stan Musial, owned an exclusive restaurant in St. Louis and told his teammates that everyone on the team should eat there sometime. Curt took him up on the offer. The year was 1960. Curt went to the restaurant and the host at the front door scolded him, saying, "I thought I told you guys to come in the back door." Curt, as stated, was a small guy, black, and not yet a star player. The host thought that Curt was a dishwasher. Curt told Musial about the incident and Stan said he "would look into it." Curt said he didn't go back......until 1964.
In 1964, Curt was an established star who led the National League in hits with 211, and was a primary part of a World Championship team. Musial retired the year before. Curt said he went into Stan's restaurant after the season. He claimed the exact same host met him at the door. According to Curt, the host said, "Oh hello Mr. Flood, can I get you a table Mr. Flood, can I get your autograph Mr. Flood?" Curt added, "Can I kiss your black a$$ Mr. Flood."
Point being, that Curt was still dimunitive in size. He was still black. But he was a star player and a celeb in St. Louis. His social status was pretty high.
Curt used the story to point out that prejudice comes in all forms. In that regard, economic and social status eliminated the racial prejudice presented by that host during their first encounter. Of course, he went into depth in his book to talk about all types of prejudice and hatred.
Great ballplayer and a good person. I disagreed with his challenge of the Reserve Clause in 1970 which really hurt him. But he believed it was the right thing to do, though he did lose his challenge which pretty much ended his career at 34. Curt passed away a few years ago.
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 07:26 AM
Ahhhhh, the infamous "they", denoting "I am not a part of said group". Very nice.
I call that "faux racism." It's a great tactic when a minority has no bloody leg to stand on, blame the accuser of using a pronoun to show his or her racist tendencies.
It's almost as effective as invoking past horrors that you never experienced yourself in order to evoke sympathy.
Hotpapa666
09-05-2007, 08:35 AM
I call that "faux racism." It's a great tactic when a minority has no bloody leg to stand on, blame the accuser of using a pronoun to show his or her racist tendencies.
It's almost as effective as invoking past horrors that you never experienced yourself in order to evoke sympathy.
How about this: Don't lump large groups of people together based on race, color or creed, and the acuse them ALL of acting/thinking in a particular way. The world isn't that simple. There are currently over 100 million minorities in this country, the vast majority of whom are simply looking to make a a living, raise their kids and have a happy life. Simple as that.
And, on the flip side, don't present obtuse arguements that infer that minorities are the only people who through up their arms and scream "persecution". It comes from all sides, an example from the Pulpit that you might like is Preachers screaming bloody murder about not being able to endorse candidates from the pulpit...
KinjaKahn
09-05-2007, 08:51 AM
How about this: Don't lump large groups of people together based on race, color or creed, and the acuse them ALL of acting/thinking in a particular way. The world isn't that simple. There are currently over 100 million minorities in this country, the vast majority of whom are simply looking to make a a living, raise their kids and have a happy life. Simple as that.
Which groups are immune to criticism?
And, on the flip side, don't present obtuse arguements that infer that minorities are the only people who through up their arms and scream "persecution". It comes from all sides, an example from the Pulpit that you might like is Preachers screaming bloody murder about not being able to endorse candidates from the pulpit...
As they should. Using money to deny them full use of the first amendment should be a crime.
Jiddy78
09-05-2007, 09:28 AM
How much press has Obama's racist church gotten?
I really don't care. I make fun of queers, lesbos, blacks, polacks, the brits, women, mexicans, and the french. Especially the french. Oh, and arabs and indians.
and buddhists.
I will continue to do so. Don't try and tell me that women don't make fun of men,
mexicans don't make fun of blacks,
brits don't make fun of americans,
blacks don't make fun of whites,
mexicans don't make fun of whites, or
that the french don't make fun of us.
It just always seems that the press is over indignant when a white man says something that isn't pc.
You make a good point, faggot.
Alright, so I'm not always politically correct and I like to clown around at times. As does Jerry Lewis......his fame and fortune came from clowning.
Actually, the point was, that no matter the racial, ethnic, religious makeup there is still going to be predudice and hatred. If everybody were of the same racial and ethnic backgound, divisions would be found anyway. Those divisions are currently present in everyday life. Monetary divisions, social status, looks (fat, skinny, acne, hair, etc.), all create divisions, prejudice, hatreds and someone feels left out.
As a kid, I was a huge baseball fan (I still am, but don't like the era of divisional play, the DH, steroids). One of my favorite players was Curt Flood, a dimunitive, but solid basehitting and good fielding centerfielder for the Cardinals, who happened to be black. He wrote a book after he retired called "The Way it is." Excellent book. If you like baseball, it's a quality read.
Anyway, he talked about his early days in the National League, before he was recognized as a star player. His teammate and eventual Hall of Famer, Stan Musial, owned an exclusive restaurant in St. Louis and told his teammates that everyone on the team should eat there sometime. Curt took him up on the offer. The year was 1960. Curt went to the restaurant and the host at the front door scolded him, saying, "I thought I told you guys to come in the back door." Curt, as stated, was a small guy, black, and not yet a star player. The host thought that Curt was a dishwasher. Curt told Musial about the incident and Stan said he "would look into it." Curt said he didn't go back......until 1964.
In 1964, Curt was an established star who led the National League in hits with 211, and was a primary part of a World Championship team. Musial retired the year before. Curt said he went into Stan's restaurant after the season. He claimed the exact same host met him at the door. According to Curt, the host said, "Oh hello Mr. Flood, can I get you a table Mr. Flood, can I get your autograph Mr. Flood?" Curt added, "Can I kiss your black a$$ Mr. Flood."
Point being, that Curt was still dimunitive in size. He was still black. But he was a star player and a celeb in St. Louis. His social status was pretty high.
Curt used the story to point out that prejudice comes in all forms. In that regard, economic and social status eliminated the racial prejudice presented by that host during their first encounter. Of course, he went into depth in his book to talk about all types of prejudice and hatred.
Great ballplayer and a good person. I disagreed with his challenge of the Reserve Clause in 1970 which really hurt him. But he believed it was the right thing to do, though he did lose his challenge which pretty much ended his career at 34. Curt passed away a few years ago.
I am a huge Cards fan, and have read the book. I agree, a great read. My Dad was a huge Flood fan too, and took me to meet him at a baseball card show years back. I still have his framed autograph in my house.
Point being, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but this:
Then they'd be hating, killing and bitch-slapping each other.
Oh, wait....they already are.
didn't seem to me to be saying this:
Actually, the point was, that no matter the racial, ethnic, religious makeup there is still going to be predudice and hatred.
I call that "faux racism." It's a great tactic when a minority has no bloody leg to stand on, blame the accuser of using a pronoun to show his or her racist tendencies.
It's almost as effective as invoking past horrors that you never experienced yourself in order to evoke sympathy.
My point is to show the ridiculousness of saying things like "they are killing each other, they are violent, they are uneducated" serves to divide us into a nation, despite being generally untrue. Unless you are from another country and are referring to Americans, it is an ignorant thing to say. You know what Ed, why don't you show me quantitatively how whites and Christians are being oppressed, and not just make off-the-wall remarks about how whites "just can't do anything anymore."
I call that "faux racism." It's a great tactic when a minority has no bloody leg to stand on, blame the accuser of using a pronoun to show his or her racist tendencies.
It's almost as effective as invoking past horrors that you never experienced yourself in order to evoke sympathy.
Also, are you saying that slavery in America has in no way effected the lives of blacks today? What about being firehosed on the streets in the 1960's, since that wasn't done to blacks today it has zero effect? Gotcha.
My point is to show the ridiculousness of saying things like "they are killing each other, they are violent, they are uneducated" serves to divide us into a nation, despite being generally untrue. Unless you are from another country and are referring to Americans, it is an ignorant thing to say. You know what Ed, why don't you show me quantitatively how whites and Christians are being oppressed, and not just make off-the-wall remarks about how whites "just can't do anything anymore."
Also quite an ignorant thing to say.
Also quite an ignorant thing to say.
I was talking in the context of "they", not the uneducated stuff. I still see your point though, and also why I am the one deserving of your ire in this whol;e thread if that is your view.
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 10:02 AM
Also, are you saying that slavery in America has in no way effected the lives of blacks today? What about being firehosed on the streets in the 1960's, since that wasn't done to blacks today it has zero effect? Gotcha.
Lots and lots of successful black (and other minorities) people nowadays. I'm thinking that the number of whites struggling can't be that much lower than the the same class of blacks or hispanics. Using the past is a copout. It's easy to do when the Press allows "leaders" to paint the success stories as sellouts to the establishment.
Lots and lots of successful black (and other minorities) people nowadays. I'm thinking that the number of whites struggling can't be that much lower than the the same class of blacks or hispanics. Using the past is a copout. It's easy to do when the Press allows "leaders" to paint the success stories as sellouts to the establishment.
I'll remember that next time 9/11 is used as a reason to go on the offensive in other countries. I know this has nothing to do with the actual topic, your avatar just reminded me of that.
I was talking in the context of "they", not the uneducated stuff. I still see your point though, and also why I am the one deserving of your ire in this whol;e thread if that is your view.
Meh. For the most part, I don't disagree with them. Generally speaking, of course.
Meh. For the most part, I don't disagree with them. Generally speaking, of course.
But damn if I talk about Americans in general and their lack of education and tendency towards violence, things which are easily quantifiable as a whole? Much better when you give a broad they as a white American. Got it man. This balance yourself by commenting on IBC's posts is getting a bit old.
But damn if I talk about Americans in general and their lack of education and tendency towards violence, things which are easily quantifiable as a whole? Much better when you give a broad they as a white American. Got it man. This balance yourself by commenting on IBC's posts is getting a bit old.
Struck a nerve have I? Don't worry, I'm not balancing anything. My history on race relations is all laid out here in past posts if you'd like to go through it. I find stereotypes quite hilarious.
I was more pointing out that your argument is that you should not make broad, generalized, sweeping comments about a group of people...and in the same breath, you question the education of Americans. More a question of consistency than it is race or "balancing" myself.
KinjaKahn
09-05-2007, 10:15 AM
I'll remember that next time 9/11 is used as a reason to go on the offensive in other countries. I know this has nothing to do with the actual topic, your avatar just reminded me of that.
"War on terror" is not war on Osama. All selected er declared terrorists are under the gun or will be soon. Of yeah, Saddam was a terrorist. Iran's army is anow a terrorist too.
"War on terror" is not war on Osama. All selected er declared terrorists are under the gun or will be soon. Of yeah, Saddam was a terrorist. Iran's army is anow a terrorist too.
That's peachy.
Weren't you one of the ones not long ago questioning who can be classified as a terrorist and under what grounds? Maybe that was Swordfish.
Struck a nerve have I? Don't worry, I'm not balancing anything. My history on race relations is all laid out here in past posts if you'd like to go through it. I find stereotypes quite hilarious.
I was more pointing out that your argument is that you should not make broad, generalized, sweeping comments about a group of people...and in the same breath, you question the education of Americans. More a question of consistency than it is race or "balancing" myself.
I also find humor about stereotypes funny. I do not find the word faggot or other bigotry funny. I don't think you answered your posts though. Anyway, my point wasn't to make a generalized statement about all Americans, but rather to say it makes as much sense to say that about all Americans as it does to say about one particular group. I see where I missed that in my wording though.
I only say that you have been going after my posts quite a bit, and am unsure why. I think I understand you political leanings though.
I also find humor about stereotypes funny. I do not find the word faggot or other bigotry funny. I don't think you answered your posts though. Anyway, my point wasn't to make a generalized statement about all Americans, but rather to say it makes as much sense to say that about all Americans as it does to say about one particular group. I see where I missed that in my wording though.
I only say that you have been going after my posts quite a bit, and am unsure why. I think I understand you political leanings though.
I didn't answer my posts?
Perhaps I "go after" your posts because I disagree with certain aspects of them...like I do with anyone else's posts I disagree with.
I didn't answer my posts?
Perhaps I "go after" your posts because I disagree with certain aspects of them...like I do with anyone else's posts I disagree with.
I disagree, I see alot of times, this one a perfect example, when you choose to go after mine when it is the "lightest" of what it is you seem to disagree with. That is, unless your point is that racial stereotypes are funny but stereotypes about Americans are not. I tried to explain my post, sorry if I didn't get it across.
I meant "my posts". Sorry about the typo.
KinjaKahn
09-05-2007, 10:31 AM
That's peachy.
Weren't you one of the ones not long ago questioning who can be classified as a terrorist and under what grounds? Maybe that was Swordfish.
I am just parroting policy. Seems many people ignore it and sit back selectively ignorant to why things are going on.
I disagree, I see alot of times, this one a perfect example, when you choose to go after mine when it is the "lightest" of what it is you seem to disagree with. That is, unless your point is that racial stereotypes are funny but stereotypes about Americans are not. I tried to explain my post, sorry if I didn't get it across.
I meant "my posts". Sorry about the typo.
What exactly do I disagree with?
Most of what was here I've already said I don't disagree with, but when I saw what you wrote about Americans (yes, you have explained what you meant), I commented that that would be an equally ignorant thing to say (by your standards), which is what I explained above.
The comment was going along the lines of "your rules" as I perceived them from your post (which you later explained was not a correct perception), not by my standards.
I am just parroting policy. Seems many people ignore it and sit back selectively ignorant to why things are going on.
Gotcha.
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 10:44 AM
I'll remember that next time 9/11 is used as a reason to go on the offensive in other countries. I know this has nothing to do with the actual topic, your avatar just reminded me of that.
That sounds like a liberal comparison. Slavery in the 1860's at least 6 generations ago vs. jihadists killing 3000 people within the last decade.
That sounds like a liberal comparison. Slavery in the 1860's at least 6 generations ago vs. jihadists killing 3000 people within the last decade.
The past is the past.
Sounds like a conservative double standard.
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 10:55 AM
The past is the past.
Sounds like a conservative double standard.
Hold yourself to that statement. It's pretty damned sad.
Hold yourself to that statement. It's pretty damned sad.
Will do, chief.
KinjaKahn
09-05-2007, 10:57 AM
The past is the past.
When is it allowed to be the past?
Jiddy78
09-05-2007, 10:59 AM
When is it allowed to be the past?
Tomorrow?
KinjaKahn
09-05-2007, 11:02 AM
Tomorrow?So a polite "get over it" should suffice?
Jiddy78
09-05-2007, 11:21 AM
So a polite "get over it" should suffice?
Yes...Painted on the side of a nuke.
When is it allowed to be the past?
That's a good question I was thinking about.
So, slavery is the past. OK, I can get on board with that...150 years is a long time.
But, there's the racial tensions of the 60s...that's not so long ago. But still, 50 years.
And 9/11, that was only 6 years ago. So is 6 years really the past?
What about the Iran Hostage situation...that was the 80s...20 years ago...still hold that against them?
What about the USSR? Disbanded in the late 80s...again, almost 20 years, but still a lot of animosity for those fucking red commie bastards.
Or Castro and Cuba? What was that, the 50s or 60s? Shit, that's the same era as the racial stuff...so we can forget about one, but remember the other?
What's the statute of limitations on when people are allowed to invoke the past in the present? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 150 years?
KinjaKahn
09-05-2007, 11:28 AM
Detroit Lions were the Kings in the 50's... you all hollar about that being the past.
'52
'53
'57
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 11:39 AM
So, slavery is the past. OK, I can get on board with that...150 years is a long time.
But, there's the racial tensions of the 60s...that's not so long ago. But still, 50 years.
My point was not necessarily that "the past is the past." There are so many people who endured and prevailed through the genocide of Nazi Germany, and that's a lot more recent than the Civil War. And there is PLENTY of anti-Semitism in this country still.
Tyranny and oppression are horrible things. I applaud those who have found a way to overcome their past problems, and I pray that those who still feel the burdens left by past cultures can succeed in life and make things better for their descendents.
Jiddy78
09-05-2007, 11:54 AM
My point was not necessarily that "the past is the past." There are so many people who endured and prevailed through the genocide of Nazi Germany, and that's a lot more recent than the Civil War. And there is PLENTY of anti-Semitism in this country still.
Tyranny and oppression are horrible things. I applaud those who have found a way to overcome their past problems, and I pray that those who still feel the burdens left by past cultures can succeed in life and make things better for their descendents.
F*cking boomer whores.
What exactly do I disagree with?
Most of what was here I've already said I don't disagree with, but when I saw what you wrote about Americans (yes, you have explained what you meant), I commented that that would be an equally ignorant thing to say (by your standards), which is what I explained above.
The comment was going along the lines of "your rules" as I perceived them from your post (which you later explained was not a correct perception), not by my standards.
Fair enough. I understand your point.
Vegas
09-05-2007, 12:15 PM
Racism isn't all in the past. It's prevalent today although not expressed the way it was in the 60's or earlier. People's attitudes are what they are.
IMO, racism is best addressed by Colin Powell. His answer is that if someone is a racist, that it's their problem. He tells young minorities to focus on their own success and not to waste energy thinking about someone else's problem.
That's a good question I was thinking about.
So, slavery is the past. OK, I can get on board with that...150 years is a long time.
But, there's the racial tensions of the 60s...that's not so long ago. But still, 50 years.
And 9/11, that was only 6 years ago. So is 6 years really the past?
What about the Iran Hostage situation...that was the 80s...20 years ago...still hold that against them?
What about the USSR? Disbanded in the late 80s...again, almost 20 years, but still a lot of animosity for those fucking red commie bastards.
Or Castro and Cuba? What was that, the 50s or 60s? Shit, that's the same era as the racial stuff...so we can forget about one, but remember the other?
What's the statute of limitations on when people are allowed to invoke the past in the present? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 150 years?
There isn't one? there is one? Good question. Relevance today is a good one to go by, but that is certainly subjective.
Racism isn't all in the past. It's prevalent today although not expressed the way it was in the 60's or earlier. People's attitudes are what they are.
IMO, racism is best addressed by Colin Powell. His answer is that if someone is a racist, that it's their problem. He tells young minorities to focus on their own success and not to waste energy thinking about someone else's problem.
That is a good way to think about things on a personal level. However making policy is a different animal IMO.
Would we use the same logic for making policy around 9/11?
Vegas
09-05-2007, 12:24 PM
That is a good way to think about things on a personal level. However making policy is a different animal IMO.
Would we use the same logic for making policy around 9/11?
Policy regarding racism should be to enforce existing laws. That's it.
Policy regarding racism should be to enforce existing laws. That's it.
Can you expand on that a bit?
Vegas
09-05-2007, 01:12 PM
Can you expand on that a bit?
Discrimination is against the law. If someone is guilty of discrimination, prosecute and/or sue them. We don't need to keep making more laws but need to enforce existing laws.
Discrimination is against the law. If someone is guilty of discrimination, prosecute and/or sue them. We don't need to keep making more laws but need to enforce existing laws.
I can mostly agree. Is a Hate Crime discrimination?
Vegas
09-05-2007, 01:24 PM
I can mostly agree. Is a Hate Crime discrimination?
I think any crime is a hate crime and that hate crime legislation is unnecessary. The emphasis needs to be on enforcing existing laws.
I think any crime is a hate crime and that hate crime legislation is unnecessary. The emphasis needs to be on enforcing existing laws.
Ok, agree to disagree. I think by their very nature hate crimes are disciminatory. If you and I et into a fight on the street, and you beat my ass over a disagreement that is bad. If you beat my ass at random because I am black, or Latino, or gay isn't that far worse?
Vegas
09-05-2007, 01:30 PM
Ok, agree to disagree. I think by their very nature hate crimes are disciminatory. If you and I et into a fight on the street, and you beat my ass over a disagreement that is bad. If you beat my ass at random because I am black, or Latino, or gay isn't that far worse?
I think either way it's a hate crime and that enforcing existing laws is sufficient in either case.
I think either way it's a hate crime and that enforcing existing laws is sufficient in either case.
Why the difference between first and second degree murder then?
Vegas
09-05-2007, 01:36 PM
Why the difference between first and second degree murder then?
Nothing as far as I'm concerned.
Nothing as far as I'm concerned.
Ok. agree to disagree.
Vegas
09-05-2007, 01:46 PM
Ok. agree to disagree.
You're much more polite than me. I just say that you have the right to be wrong.
hannitykillspuppies
09-05-2007, 02:04 PM
Neither do the rest of us.
maybe you could give us all pointers on how to overcome the difficulties and challenges that are the plight of a white man in america.
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 02:06 PM
Ok, agree to disagree. I think by their very nature hate crimes are disciminatory. If you and I et into a fight on the street, and you beat my ass over a disagreement that is bad. If you beat my ass at random because I am black, or Latino, or gay isn't that far worse?
I compare this to the whole insane argument for murder. Aside from self-defense or battlefield killings, I consider anyone who willfully kills someone to have a degree of insanity. So it's tough for me to feel sympathy and let someone get a light sentence because they're insane, because I think a person isn't in their right mind if they're willing to hurt another person.
So, I think murder is murder. It's funny that capital punishment isn't a form of deterrent for murders (according to the detractors), yet hate crime legislation is supposed to deter and change society from being racist etc.
Ed Who?
09-05-2007, 02:07 PM
maybe you could give us all pointers on how to overcome the difficulties and challenges that are the plight of a white man in america.
It involves Mountain Dew and 36 holes a day.
Jiddy78
09-05-2007, 02:44 PM
I compare this to the whole insane argument for murder. Aside from self-defense or battlefield killings, I consider anyone who willfully kills someone to have a degree of insanity. So it's tough for me to feel sympathy and let someone get a light sentence because they're insane, because I think a person isn't in their right mind if they're willing to hurt another person.
So, I think murder is murder. It's funny that capital punishment isn't a form of deterrent for murders (according to the detractors), yet hate crime legislation is supposed to deter and change society from being racist etc.
I'll go ahead and see this and raise you those excepted killing scenarios...
Hotpapa666
09-05-2007, 10:08 PM
Which groups are immune to criticism?
As they should. Using money to deny them full use of the first amendment should be a crime.
No group is immune to criticism. But, lumping huge groups of people together based on race, for example, is so overly simplistic that it it yields almost nothing meaningful.
Iron Jaw
09-06-2007, 03:59 AM
I am a huge Cards fan, and have read the book. I agree, a great read. My Dad was a huge Flood fan too, and took me to meet him at a baseball card show years back. I still have his framed autograph in my house.
:
POINT OF REFERENCE: I believe this is the first time we have agreed on anything IBC. I don't have an autograph of Curt's, but I have some from five of his teammates on their respective baseball cards. Ken Boyer, Bill White, Dick Groat, Tim McCarver and Bob Gibson. I got them all at a ballgame at the original Bush Stadium (Sportsman's Park - which was renamed Bush Stadium before the new stadium was built......now they have a newer new stadium) back when I was 8-years old in the summer of 1964.....we lived near Denver at the time but traveled to Mizzou, where my grandmother lived, on many occasions and always took in a Cardinal ballgame. That was a terrific team that won the World Series against the Yankees. I didn't have a card of Flood at the time. I handed the five cards I had to a batboy and he took them into the dugout. Great memories for a youngster.
KinjaKahn
09-06-2007, 08:53 AM
No group is immune to criticism. But, lumping huge groups of people together based on race, for example, is so overly simplistic that it it yields almost nothing meaningful.
Five minutes ago on the news they lumped black women together (obviously based on race...) having significantly worse cases of breast cancer compared to other groups.
Lumping is lumping... less of course it make someone cry...
POINT OF REFERENCE: I believe this is the first time we have agreed on anything IBC. I don't have an autograph of Curt's, but I have some from five of his teammates on their respective baseball cards. Ken Boyer, Bill White, Dick Groat, Tim McCarver and Bob Gibson. I got them all at a ballgame at the original Bush Stadium (Sportsman's Park - which was renamed Bush Stadium before the new stadium was built......now they have a newer new stadium) back when I was 8-years old in the summer of 1964.....we lived near Denver at the time but traveled to Mizzou, where my grandmother lived, on many occasions and always took in a Cardinal ballgame. That was a terrific team that won the World Series against the Yankees. I didn't have a card of Flood at the time. I handed the five cards I had to a batboy and he took them into the dugout. Great memories for a youngster.
Wow, we do agree. I have Gibson's too, but getting them back then is even cooler. I also have Lou Brock's and a host of others.
Five minutes ago on the news they lumped black women together (obviously based on race...) having significantly worse cases of breast cancer compared to other groups.
Lumping is lumping... less of course it make someone cry...
There is a big difference, and I think you know that.
hannitykillspuppies
09-06-2007, 11:34 AM
Ok, agree to disagree. I think by their very nature hate crimes are disciminatory. If you and I et into a fight on the street, and you beat my ass over a disagreement that is bad. If you beat my ass at random because I am black, or Latino, or gay isn't that far worse?
hate crime legislation is a joke. it does nothing to address the problem of ignorance and bigotry that would lead someone to commit a crime based on the race, gender, religion, creed, etc of their victim. stiffer sentences will do nothing change the hearts and minds of those who feel a sense of superiority over others or perceive some inferiority in others based on race, gender, religion, creed, etc. if someone murders a loved one, does their reason for doing so make your grief and suffering more difficult or less difficult to deal with?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.