• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Imus be an idiot . . .

Dustin Kesselberg said:
Explain. Be specific. Address everything i've said and point out how I have failed to prove anything.
Click to expand...

I already gave you a way to accomplish this.

Blindfold. Dartboard. Dart. Refutation.

Nappy hair is used as a derogatory slur versus blacks. Every dictionary you have linked to to try (extremely poorly) to "prove your point", has stated this much. A derogatory slur is one of the definitions. It's listed everywhere I know as one. You are distorting the facts to attempt to try to "appear right", because you get a chubby everytime you do. At least, that's my theory, as I don't see why else you would come onto this board and keep whining, "I'm right! I'm right! I proved all of you wrong! What? Refutation? I'll just close my eyes and ears and go 'lalalalalala'!"

Ho is most often used towards women, and in this case it dealt with an all-women basketball team. I have, personally, never heard "ho" used to describe a male. Period. Prostitution is mostly associated with women in the public mindset anyways, and male prostitutes almost always end up in the minority. If you have evidence of otherwise, present it, but I have seen no such evidence myself.

Dustin: You have been pwned again.

But go ahead and "put me in my place". I'm still laughing at that little piece of bull that you spouted. :D

You "putting" me in my "place". :D

Haha.

You have proven nothing. You will prove nothing. This post will end up being a waste of my time, time that I cannot get back.

Hours of my life spent on posting uselessly on a messageboard so you can have some sort of delusion that you are "gaining points" on the interweb. It's sad, really.
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
you can not prove that what imus said was neither racist or sexist.
Click to expand...

Sure I can. I have.


andyandy said:
This is a silly thing to say. Both "ho" and "nappy" have sexist and racist connotations respectively, and so their use in a derogatory manner inevitably has lead to some people interpreting the sentence as both a racist and sexist one.
Click to expand...

"Ho" can simply mean a male prostitute as well as a female and thus doesn't necessarily have sexist connotations.

"Nappy" is purely the way hair is and could apply for either white or black people.

Just because someone "interprets" it as racist doesn't mean that was Imus' intentions.


There is no absolute value for the interpretation of the implied meaning behind an ambiguous statement, to claim there is is foolish. You can make an argument for why you do not believe that the sentence was made in a racist or sexist manner - nevertheless this proof is also beyond you. Maybe when you reach your latter teenage years you'll study such things in school. :)[/quote]

  1. Please explain why proving that nothing he said was racist or sexist and even if they were, it said it thoughtlessly doesn't prove he isn't racist.
  2. I'm not a teenager.
 
You're still evading and failing to be specific in how I have failed to prove anything.

Tailgater said:
If you have proven something, it becomes fact.
Click to expand...

It was fact before I ever proved it. Just because something hasn't yet been proven to be a fact doesn't mean it isn't a fact. What Imus said wasn't racist long before I even posted in this thread.


Tailgater said:
Just because you think your opinion is right, does not mean you have proven anything.
Click to expand...

  1. Define "opinion".
  2. It's true that "just because I think I am right does not mean I have proven anything". However what DOES mean I have proven something are my posts in this thread. Please explain how my posts in this thread have failed to prove anything. Explain. Be specific. Address everything i've said and point out how I have failed to prove anything.
Until you do, I won't waste my time with your mindless evasive nonsense. You're worse than a Creationist.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
You're clearly unable to point out how anything i've said in this thread is false or fails to prove my points.
Click to expand...

Actually, this entire thread is chock full of arguments that show how your "proof" fails. Just because you're too dense and proud to look at or consider it, does not reflect on my ability or inability, but instead on your denseness.

Anyways, re-read my post, I edited it to come up with a refutation. And... pretty much, really, that's all I'm posting on the matter. You are wrong. You will always be wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if your name was Wrong Wrongington III.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
"Ho" can simply mean a male prostitute as well as a female and thus doesn't necessarily have sexist connotations.
Click to expand...

He didn't say it to any men, although he did say they looked like men.

"Nappy" is purely the way hair is and could apply for either white or black people.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'll link article Mephisto posted in the other thread that you should respond too.


Just because someone "interprets" it as racist doesn't mean that was Imus' intentions.
Click to expand...

It might not have been his intention, but he should have known after having a history of making like comments, his time would come.

Can we get merry-go-round music with this thread?
 
Tailgater said:
He didn't say it to any men, although he did say they looked like men.
Click to expand...

I know. Just because you insult a woman doesn't mean your insult is necessarily sexist. If I call a woman "fat" it is insulting but not 'sexist'. Why? Because both men and women can be fat. If I call a woman a 'ho' it is insulting but not sexist. Why? Both men and women can be ho's and it is thus sexually ambiguous.



Tailgater said:
Wrong. I'll link article Mephisto posted in the other thread that you should respond too.
Click to expand...

Already addressed it.



Tailgater said:
It might not have been his intention, but he should have known after having a history of making like comments, his time would come.
Click to expand...

He did know better. He wasn't thinking about it. It was a mindless comment he made. That's all.
 
Lonewulf said:
Explain.

What government controls are being advocated?

Show evidence.

And what "others"? I haven't seen a single person on this forum, in this discussion, talk about government controls. So once more, your argument was weak in this context, as no one here is advocating any form of government control.
Click to expand...


A moment if you will, some of us work and dont spend all day on this forum.

BTW there is a world outside of the this and other internet forums, where what people do and say actually do influence laws and our future.

I wasn't referencing 'others' as to posters on this forum. I will get the links for what Al Sharpton and OTHERS are proposing.
 
GroundStrength said:
A moment if you will, some of us work and dont spend all day on this forum.
Click to expand...

Ooo, a hint of condescension! Color me surprised.

And after I log off, I'll go right back to studying to keep up getting my degree from college. Probably won't make Dean's List this year, though, unfortunately.

BTW there is a world outside of the this and other internet forums, where what people do and say actually do influence laws and our future.
Click to expand...

And?

I wasn't referencing 'others' as to posters on this forum. I will get the links for what Al Sharpton and OTHERS are proposing.
Click to expand...

Let's see what laws or government intervention is being proposed. I have heard of nothing except for boycotts (which is not government intervention) and investors backing out (which is not government intervention), and a workplace firing a worker (which is not government intervention).

Further, if no one in this forum was advocating, defending, or justifying government intervention, then that pretty much just blew your entire argument out of the water. Or, at the least, it blew your, "Does that give the government a right to attack speech?!!!!!oneoneone" rant out of the water, which... oh, right, that was your entire speech pretty much.
 
Last edited:
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I know. Just because you insult a woman doesn't mean your insult is necessarily sexist. If I call a woman "fat" it is insulting but not 'sexist'. Why? Because both men and women can be fat. If I call a woman a 'ho' it is insulting but not sexist. Why? Both men and women can be ho's and it is thus sexually ambiguous.
Click to expand...

This actually makes sense in your head?

Wow.

So you're saying that "ho" is used to describe both males and females in the vernacular? That "ho" is completely ambiguous?

Wow.

Just... wow.

I'm speechless.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Already addressed it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have.


The word 'nappy' has its hurtful roots in slavery

POSTED: 10:36 p.m. EDT, April 12, 2007

NEW YORK (AP) -- Call it "the other N-word."

Since slavery times, "nappy" has been used to malign the natural hair texture of many people of African descent: dense, dark and tightly curled. So when Don Imus referred to the women of the Rutgers basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" -- a widely condemned remark that got him fired Thursday -- it cut deeper than many who are unfamiliar with the term might realize.

Even today, with natural black hair in full bloom throughout pop culture, "nappy hair" remains a sensitive issue -- especially, as with the original N-word used so casually by many blacks, when a white person uses it.

"When Imus says 'these nappy-headed hos,' his first flaw is he's using an in-group term that's loaded," said Lanita Jacobs-Huey, associate professor of anthropology and American studies and ethnicity at the University of Southern California.

"When I hear it from someone who doesn't understand the depth of pain, they just don't have the right to say it," said Carla Lynne Hall, a singer from Harlem.

The pain goes back to slavery. Whites saw blacks' natural hair as a negative attribute, a contrast to the European standard of "ideal" beauty. As a result, even blacks started to look down on their own natural features.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/12/nappy.hair.ap/index.html
Click to expand...



Dustin Kesselberg said:
He did know better. He wasn't thinking about it. It was a mindless comment he made. That's all.
Click to expand...

It was a mindless RACIST comment he made, and he made it KNOWING it was racist, otherwise he wouldn't have apologized.

For the record, his wife has (after the meeting with the Rutger's team last night) publicly stated that the hate mail the women are receiving should stop, and, "if you want to send hate mail, send it to my husband."
 
Mephisto said:
For the record, his wife has (after the meeting with the Rutger's team last night) publicly stated that the hate mail the women are receiving should stop, and, "if you want to send hate mail, send it to my husband."
Click to expand...

My respect for his wife has gone up, and if Don Imus agreed with her statement, my respect for him has gone up as well.

Ironically, I respect Don Imus far more than I respect certain people that attempt to defend him. :D
 
Lonewulf said:
My respect for his wife has gone up, and if Don Imus agreed with her statement, my respect for him has gone up as well.

Ironically, I respect Don Imus far more than I respect certain people that attempt to defend him. :D
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, me too. I takes a lot to apologize for doing something stupid and I actually would have preferred he not lose his job (although I would have gone along with something a little "stiffer" than a two-week suspension), but that was the decision of his employer and no one else. No one can convince me that his employer was "pressured" into firing him, they ALWAYS do what is best for business and it became clear that Imus was a liability.
 
Mephisto said:
Believe it or not, me too. I takes a lot to apologize for doing something stupid and I actually would have preferred he not lose his job (although I would have gone along with something a little "stiffer" than a two-week suspension), but that was the decision of his employer and no one else. No one can convince me that his employer was "pressured" into firing him, they ALWAYS do what is best for business and it became clear that Imus was a liability.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything but the bolded.

First of all, a company can still make a stand, even if it hurts their business. Businesses are capable of acting ethically and legally, even when they potentially lose business. To claim that they "always do what is best for business" seems like an absolutist position. If you changed it to "mostly do what is best for business", then yeah, I'd agree, but not ALWAYS.

Second of all, even then, they don't do what is best for business, but instead what they THINK is best for business. This is a key note. For instance, the Fox TV Network was totally stupid in how it aired the show "Firefly". Firefly was a great science fiction show, that inspired and attracted TV audiences of all types, especially after it was cancelled. The Fox TV Network, in all of their wisdom, thought it would be best for business if they showed a new TV show (and it was new, it wasn't The Simpsons, so of course no one would like it) at a time period where most people wouldn't really be able to catch it. They made a few other dumb decisions, but in the end Firefly was cancelled, in spite of it's powerful fan base and how many people that actually watch it are drawn into the story and characters.

But anyways, yeah, this is my point: Companies can make decisions that hurt business to act ethically, and companies can make decisions that hurt business even when they are trying to help it (I.E., "Everyone makes mistakes, the bigger you are, the bigger the mistakes can be").

ETA: I just realized that I put in a lot of bolded words. It's not because I'm angry or trying to sound like I'm shouting or anything, it just seemed like a good thing to use for emphasis...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom