Merged Paula Deen: Use the N word, get the axe

[Xulld]

The 'n-word' only has one meaning, and it is unambiguously racist. 'white' and 'trash' are neutral words that may be considered racist when used in certain contexts.

Is that really true? So each time it is used, no matter what, it is always some kind of racial pejorative?

I think not.

 

[truethat]

Are you really going to argue that Paula Deen meant it like she was talking to her homies?

 

[332nd]

Is that really true? So each time it is used, no matter what, it is always some kind of racial pejorative?

I think not.

Ok, so when is it not?

 

[marplots]

No, it would be more like watching OJ Simpson host a sports TV show. It wouldn't surprise me if he could be entertaining, and certainly he has significant knowledge of at least football, but I would not be interested at all in watching him. I would also look askance at any network that employed him in such a capacity.

I think that's a great example of what I mean. The question is why do we accept he has insight and knowledge and still reject him in the role of sportscaster? The role of commentator has nothing to do with the crime, so why does it matter?

Your "hat" example is just silly; though I know the better example of Hitler's mustache style is still looked down upon today, it's a big-time "who cares" situation - even current Nazis aren't similarly sculpting their facial hair. In the case of a pedophile mechanic, I suppose I would wonder how you'd even know the social/criminal history of your mechanic. It's true that I'd tend to avoid giving my custom to people I know to be pedophiles (or other criminals), but I don't run background checks on everyone I meet and certainly not on every employee of businesses with which I come into contact.

You're OJ example was much better. As to background checks, are you saying it doesn't matter what people may have done, only whether we know about those things or not?

I think that's correct too. She hosted the show for quite awhile and was popular during the time period the lawsuit covers. So her racism wasn't an issue for the show, or at least not detectable to her fans. So now it's come out and the great show someone watched a few months ago is, what? tainted and no longer a great show?

I'm not disputing this is how humans behave and react, I'm just fascinated that we do it so readily and without examination or curiosity.

In other words, I think you're trying a little too hard to find fault with this woman's firing. Image matters way too much in the entertainment business (and that's the business in which The Food Network competes; they're not selling food!) to set aside issues that could tarnish a personality's public reputation.

Someone earlier made a great case for firing her - she works at the will of her fans and the predicted falling off in popularity makes her not worth the money. Since her contract was up anyhow, it's a good time to boot her. I don't care for her or the show, and grant employers the right to fire someone. But the whole mechanism is still interesting.

Suppose Bill O'Reilly came out as gay. I'd predict his fan base would fall off. (Remember, Deen gets fired based on this expectation, not, as far as I know, actual Neilsen numbers). Should Billo get the boot because he's gay with the same rationale? I wouldn't argue against it. Nor would I argue against firing a newswoman who no longer looks as attractive as she used to. The same logic applies and it should. However, in some cases, there's a kind of righteous revenge motif and in others the firing is seen as an injustice.

And then we have the obverse. Wasn't Glenn Beck fired in spite of good ratings?

 

[Piggy]

Ok, so when is it not?

Are you seriously asking that question?

When Q-Tip called Tommy Hifiger "my ******" do you believe it was an insult?

Hilfiger certainly didn't think it was.

 

[Babbylonian]

I think that's a great example of what I mean. The question is why do we accept he has insight and knowledge and still reject him in the role of sportscaster? The role of commentator has nothing to do with the crime, so why does it matter?



You're OJ example was much better. As to background checks, are you saying it doesn't matter what people may have done, only whether we know about those things or not?

I think that's correct too. She hosted the show for quite awhile and was popular during the time period the lawsuit covers. So her racism wasn't an issue for the show, or at least not detectable to her fans. So now it's come out and the great show someone watched a few months ago is, what? tainted and no longer a great show?

I'm not disputing this is how humans behave and react, I'm just fascinated that we do it so readily and without examination or curiosity.

There is often examination and curiosity. That her "offense" doesn't bother you in this respect doesn't make others' differing reactions irrational.

I have another example: A friend of mine refuses to pay money to see any movie featuring Tom Cruise. This is because he refuses to support a high-profile scientologist. He's well aware that he might enjoy the movies themselves and might even enjoy Cruise's performances. Despite this, he won't pay an extra dime for access to those movies (he can't control what Tom Cruise work might appear on TV) and declines to have any interest in watching them at all.

Personally, while I have nearly as much disdain for Scientology and Tom Cruise's opinions/statements as this friend does, I'm willing to separate that from his work. It doesn't mean my friend's stance is thoughtless or unexamined; it just happens to be his way of quietly protesting Cruise's non-acting endeavors.

The assumption that people aren't thinking clearly just because they come to different conclusions is a little self-centered when it comes to these kinds of things. I'd be on your side if this was about people denying evolution or gravity, but entertainment choices are inherently subjective.

Someone earlier made a great case for firing her - she works at the will of her fans and the predicted falling off in popularity makes her not worth the money. Since her contract was up anyhow, it's a good time to boot her. I don't care for her or the show, and grant employers the right to fire someone. But the whole mechanism is still interesting.

Suppose Bill O'Reilly came out as gay. I'd predict his fan base would fall off. (Remember, Deen gets fired based on this expectation, not, as far as I know, actual Neilsen numbers). Should Billo get the boot because he's gay with the same rationale? I wouldn't argue against it. Nor would I argue against firing a newswoman who no longer looks as attractive as she used to. The same logic applies and it should. However, in some cases, there's a kind of righteous revenge motif and in others the firing is seen as an injustice.

I think it depends on the totality of the circumstances. It would be pretty hard to get behind Fox News if they prematurely (in advance of a hypothesized drop in ratings) terminated a host's contract because s/he came out as homosexual, and they'd have a hard time defending the action in the inevitable lawsuit. Still, if they did as Food Network did in this case and simply declined to offer a new contract, it would be similarly difficult for the hypothetical Fox News host to justify any suit they might want to bring because Fox News would have virtually absolute discretion at that point.

 

[dudalb]

If you have a show on a TV Network you live and die by two things; Image and How Much Advertising Revenue you bring in(ratings are just a means to bringing in ad revenue) ,and they are closely connected.
Deen managed to wreck her goody goody image and make sure that no advertisers would want to be associated with her all in one fell swoop. You do that, and your days on that Network are numbered.

 

[theprestige]

To me, the highlighted part is a kind of magical thinking. It's the idea that a character taint - something that disgusts us - transfers to unrelated things. I think of it as in the same category of not wearing a hat a serial killer wore, or not wanting a pedophile to work on your car.

I'm pretty sure that considering the public image of a media personality from whom you hope to generate revenue is the opposite of magical thinking: It's extremely pragmatic, realistic thinking.

Me? I'm white, so I have the privilege of not really caring if she's racist. But there's enough other cooking shows out there that if I cared about mild racism, and I cared about cooking shows, I'd have no problem changing the channel every time her weird butterface appeared on the screen.

 

[Piggy]

If you have a show on a TV Network you live and die by two things; Image and How Much Advertising Revenue you bring in(ratings are just a means to bringing in ad revenue) ,and they are closely connected.
Deen managed to wreck her goody goody image and make sure that no advertisers would want to be associated with her all in one fell swoop. You do that, and your days on that Network are numbered.

But consider Chik-fil-A.

They got a boost from the exposure of their donations to anti-gay groups.

Paula's restaurant in Branson might just get extra business from folks wanting to show support.

Yeah, she's lost a revenue stream, but she'll survive.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you have a show on a TV Network you live and die by two things; Image and How Much Advertising Revenue you bring in(ratings are just a means to bringing in ad revenue) ,and they are closely connected.
Deen managed to wreck her goody goody image and make sure that no advertisers would want to be associated with her all in one fell swoop. You do that, and your days on that Network are numbered.

It's like the kids at Disney World seeing Goofy with his costume head off. In this case, Goofy's head was not only off but he was screaming abuse at a hooker for stealing his meth. You can't repackage that sort of thing as a folksy old lady who cooks and is quaintly amusing.

 

[theprestige]

You can't repackage that sort of thing as a folksy old lady who cooks and is quaintly amusing.

I dunno, they packaged Samuel L. Jackson as a folksy old quaintly amusing racist house negro in Django Unchained...

 

[truethat]

But consider Chik-fil-A.

They got a boost from the exposure of their donations to anti-gay groups.

Paula's restaurant in Branson might just get extra business from folks wanting to show support.

Yeah, she's lost a revenue stream, but she'll survive.

Exactly, her restaurants will be fine. But it's totally understandable why they fired her.

 

[332nd]

Are you seriously asking that question?

Yes. Hence the question mark at the end of the sentence.

When Q-Tip called Tommy Hifiger "my ******" do you believe it was an insult?

Hilfiger certainly didn't think it was.

And other people would've. Some even without the word being directed at them. Like it or not, the word carries that baggage with it.

 

[desertgal]

So racial slurs are cool if used in reference to someone who has wronged you? Good tip.

Uh...I think pointing a gun at someone's head is a little beyond "wronged". I have no idea if her story is true or not, but IF it is...well, somehow I don' think anyone would be vigilant about political correctness in that situation.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, so when is it not?

Among my circle of friends, it's frequently used as a term of affection and even respect.

 

[332nd]

Among my circle of friends, it's frequently used as a term of affection and even respect.

Do you & said friends use it outside of the circle freely with everyone?

 

[theprestige]

Do you & said friends use it outside of the circle freely with everyone?

Hrm. Is this a goalpost-move?

You asked when is it not a racial pejorative. I gave you an example. So have others. Was that question not the question you meant to ask?

Maybe you should clarify what you meant.

 

[Babbylonian]

Uh...I think pointing a gun at someone's head is a little beyond "wronged". I have no idea if her story is true or not, but IF it is...well, somehow I don' think anyone would be vigilant about political correctness in that situation.

"In that situation?" In that situation, one wouldn't dare to say something so inflammatory to the person holding the gun. Thus, my interpretation was that she referred to the criminal using that word after the fact, which is what I would consider indefensible.

 

[smartcooky]

To me, the highlighted part is a kind of magical thinking. It's the idea that a character taint - something that disgusts us - transfers to unrelated things. I think of it as in the same category of not wearing a hat a serial killer wore, or not wanting a pedophile to work on your car.

Yup.

One of my favourite Sci-Fi authors was James Patrick Hogan, among the best "hard sci-fi" authors in his day.

Some years ago, he came under suspicion of being a Holocaust denier through his support of, and association with, Ernst Zündel. He was also a supporter of Velikovsky's "catastrophism" theories (and if you read his "Giants" series, its not hard to understand why).

However, none of this affected his ability to write great sci-fi, and despite that fact that I believe Holocaust deniers to be at best deluded and at worst proponents of genocide, it certainly didn't stop me reading his works.


[OFF TOPIC]
EDIT: If you ever get a chance to read Hogan's "Code of the Lifemaker" or "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" do so. They are nothing short of brilliant,

 

[desertgal]

"In that situation?" In that situation, one wouldn't dare to say something so inflammatory to the person holding the gun. Thus, my interpretation was that she referred to the criminal using that word after the fact, which is what I would consider indefensible.

Excellent point. For me, however, it would depend on the after. For example, if I was in that situation, and the jerk was arrested, I can't say I wouldn't call him something derogatory in the immediate hereafter. I have to figure I 'd be both shaken and pissed off...and feeling somewhat safer to give him a piece of my mind with the cops standing by. I don't think that would be indefensible, either. People in shock don't always react rationally...and there would certainly be nothing wrong with being both shaken and pissed off.

Two weeks or so on...yes, that would be indefensible.

I don't know the details of Deen's story, or even if she is telling the truth, so can't comment what her state of mind might have been.